Immaturity and temptation: Challenges for 2004

The next general election is not far off. Yet proposals for an improved electoral system have not yet been translated into new laws. Adrinof A. Chaniago, author of a number of books on political development and a lecturer at the School of Social and Political Sciences at the University of Indonesia, shared his outlook for 2004 with The Jakarta Post contributor Dwi Iswandono.

Question: How do you view the condition of political parties, in which conflicts have emerged?

Answer: The similarity in interests is the only main factor that unites them. So far not one of the political parties has been able to establish an institution. Their existence is determined by the pattern of informal interaction.

Our politicians have never presented their visions. Their activities are related only to practical politics. As a result, politicians tend to resort to other methods when they are not satisfied or fail to gain control of a political party. For that reason, there has been no institutionalization.

Q: So what are the prospects for political parties?

A: Let's speak about the medium-term. We cannot be optimistic about their prospects in five to 10 years. The prospects depend on those political communities themselves. The questions are, who will be involved in the development of parties and whether we can see their ability to settle their internal conflicts.

The impetus for such development must also come from outside the parties. So far politicians have striven for their narrow interests instead of focusing on political development. At first, there was hope that intellectuals from higher educational institutions, activists and other prominent figures would enter the political arena during the transitional period. However, they have not really contributed to the development of political parties and other political institutions in the past three years.

Here we should be able to hope for the role of civil groups, or pro-democracy actors or NGO activists. But they are also short of resources caused by the loss of orientation, hesitation about joining political parties, and their difficulty in defining the situation and determining the role they will play.

They tend to stick to a central issue which has a national scope, causing them to be reluctant to leave Jakarta, while political development must be carried out in many places. The biggest challenges and opportunities in political development are found outside Jakarta.

Q: What's the situation of political parties outside the capital?

A: The regions outside Jakarta are lacking in resources. Political development needs resources, both economic and intellectual. No wonder they often run out of stamina. So far the political players have consisted of local figures with limited abilities, whereas they face serious problems like bad governance.

Look at the widespread politicization of the judiciary. The Attorney General's Office and the Supreme Court have tried to make improvements, but the justice system in many regions remains unchanged.

Q: What's the direct impact of the conflict at the top level in the regions?

A: So far democratization is limited to the center while those living in the regions remain busy with long-standing issues ... Usually someone who wants to become a chairman or to occupy a political position prefers to split the political party he has joined or establish a new one ... The phenomenon at the top then expands to the regions. By joining a new party, a person will have a bigger chance to occupy a higher position at the regional level. So we then get lots of small political kingdoms.

Q: What can be done to correct the situation?

A: Let's just turn to civil society. This group is expected to be able to remind political parties to be aware of their responsibility ... to participate in the formulation of public policies at the central and the regional level.

Q: How far will civil society groups be able to control parties in the regions?

A: They are still weak because they lack resources, including in recruitment. Former campus activists have often been doubtful about choosing political parties. They have limited stamina and only a few of them can stay in local groups for a long time because they have to meet the need of their basic requirements and support. That is why civil society movements in the regions remain weak. But civil society leaders in Jakarta still survive as they are close to economic sources.

Q: So how do you see the next general election in 2004?

A: That's in the very near future so there will be no significant changes. This can be seen from the condition of human resources and political behavior in political parties and civil society. The district system in general elections and the direct presidential election system has yet to be implemented. Thus, the 2004 general election will not show significant progress in either the electoral system or the quality of resources enjoyed by political parties and civil society.

In the 1999 general election, the community was very enthusiastic about controlling the election, yet this was not followed by institutionalization -- a basic prerequisite for further steps. People became trapped in materialistic temptations and the orientation toward projects. Those traps have weakened the civil society movement.

Q: Such developments will surely affect economic recovery as investors will not know who they can rely on in politics or governance. Would investors look to the military, if they see the military as the only partner which might provide some certainty?

A: Investors will take a wait-and-see attitude. They will not choose a coalition with the military as the latter's situation has also become uncertain.

The military is no longer able to take repressive steps. People can criticize the military and political parties can put pressure on the military, causing investors to lack the courage to establish a coalition with the military group.

It is indeed difficult to hope for economic recovery while much of the resources have been allocated to the settlement of conflicts, reconciliation and unnecessary ceremonies.

Moreover, in this chaotic situation Indonesia has become a paradise for money market actors. Speculators always see political uncertainty as a condition that can be easily manipulated when playing the money market.

However, the political elite have instead contributed to the prolonged crisis. They have created conflicts which are often followed by efforts to mobilize the masses without the awareness that their actions have a direct adverse effect on the economy.

Political party figures have no economic vision. They are not aware that every political upheaval resulting from their political behavior has severe effects on the economy like the fall in the rupiah exchange rate, an increase in the inflation rate and the swelling of debts.

This is worsened by the bad performance of their representatives in the House of Representatives at the national level and in the regional legislative councils.

The deteriorating situation in the regions is more noticeable because party representatives tend to take advantage of their authority by drawing up budgets that benefit them.

In formulating regional budgets, they only think of making allocations on the basis of their own interests, such as their family's welfare, instead of fostering economic activities in their regions.

We cannot expect economic recovery from political parties because they have created problems and undermined the national economy instead of contributing to economic revival. They have never explained their economic recovery agenda. Actually, those political parties should have formed a caucus to contribute to making improvements in the economy. They took such steps in political affairs like in the presidential election.