Immaturity and temptation: Challenges for 2004

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.