Indira marches on to serve the people

Indira marches on to serve the people

Emmy Fitri, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

As a politician she has been disheartened and let down by her own
party, but as a concerned citizen she keeps her spirits high and
is idealistic when talking about political parties and the
people.

Indira Damayanti Bambang Sugondo was very disappointed when
the truth was not revealed in the high-profile financial scandal,
which allegedly involves House Speaker Akbar Tandjung and the
State Logistics Agency (Bulog).

She decided to relinquish her seat at the House of
Representatives (DPR), because, in her words "the super body", as
she refers to the House as, was occupied by legislators who were
carrying on the old practices of their predecessors during the
New Order era.

Indira, born in Bandung on Feb. 9, 1951, is certainly a new
name on the country's political stage. She formally joined the
Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan) only in
1998.

Her earlier life was far removed from political affairs. She
once was an air stewardess, a teacher and a secretary at a giant
oil company, before she veered off course and landed on the
political stage.

Indira, a mother of four and president director of her own
catering company, PT Andrawina Praja Sarana, gave an interview
about her ideals on living in a political party with The Jakarta
Post recently from her office at Pondok Indah Plaza, South
Jakarta.

What did you expect when you decided to join a political
party?

My expectation at that time, of course, was that I wanted my
political aspirations channeled properly because if I, as a
member of the public, don't shelter a certain political party, my
aspiration is often not clearly contained or manifested.

The choice for a certain political party is also based on many
considerations, among other things, its ideology and the platform
of the party.

I joined PDI Perjuangan because it was so clear at that time
that the party could be considered a reformist party.

Initially, PDI Perjuangan was formed as a victim of repressive
maneuvers by the earlier regime -- it should be able to make some
corrections and reforms for a better political environment.

As time passed by, I saw party executives were reluctant to
open their minds and choose an easier way, seeking safety in
maintaining power and amassing wealth.

Until today, I don't see clear reforms carried out by my
party. But that's not the main reason for my decision to resign
from the House. I'm still staying in the party because I have an
obligation to my voters.

Anyway, from the history of the establishment of PDI
Perjuangan, there is still hope that we can reform it as long as
the elite (executives) realize this and are willing to be part of
the (reform) drive.

There are things that are not communicated to us, and that's
too bad we cannot do anything about that.

I feel that PDI Perjuangan supporters have the entire right to
know the reasons why their representatives make certain political
decisions at the House. Party executives must communicate with
their supporters.

With the current situation at the House, is it possible to see
if the public or voters are not being politically served?

That's what I am concerned most about because political
parties have forgotten their promises to the voters. Parties
should be able to bridge the gap between legislators and the
people because they can reach the public directly.

I want to correct the impression that the incumbent members of
the House are worse than those from the previous period.

The tainted image has clearly been blown out of proportion by
pro-status quo groups. KKN (local abbreviation for corruption,
collusion and nepotism) is an old practice. It was there long
before the incumbent legislators.

The difference is the media now dares to reveal everything
about lawmakers and what they do. What we expect is for the
public to react to it. We want people to criticize us. It is the
public who must control the House.

The House has turned into a super body that stands above
everyone, even the President. It holds fit and proper tests for
judges and other state officials, but who controls the
legislators? It has to be the people through their parties.

In the future, it would be better for the parties to make a
portfolio of their candidates and familiarize voters with them to
allow the public the opportunity to see and make choices of their
candidate representatives.

After the downfall of former president Soeharto, we saw a boom
in political parties. How do you see these parties' contributions
in educating their supporters to learn how to live
democratically?

It's sad to say that PDI Perjuangan is not growing or
developing into a professional and democratic party. I'd rather
say it is still very traditionally managed and it romanticizes
about the past and the charisma of several figures.

But even with the condition it is in, the public is getting
more clever, and they can see what's going on. In the future,
they will be able to choose the right party for them. It is a
double-edged sword, because the power struggles and ongoing
intrigue among party executives have come to an unhealthy level,
but with the media revealing their actions, the public can find
out for themselves that it is not ethical at all.

What would make you walk away from political matters?

I don't want to be a hypocrite by saying that I must be loyal
to my party. If it comes down to a situation where the party
really cannot represent my aspirations, of course I wouldn't
stay.

The current ongoing political bickering and the power
struggles have caused public apathy. I'm afraid there will be
more golput (people who do not exercise their right to vote) in
the next poll.

I have to say that it's been a setback. Political parties have
failed to educate the people and this has made them apathetic. I
have an obsession about the future. I wish I could ask some
nonpartisan, credible figures to unite in a party.

The party, a white party or whatever it is called, would give
the public the options to what trusted candidates to elect.

The laws regulate that only those in a political party can be
elected. That is why if we succeed in guiding our candidates to
become leaders or people's representatives, then we dismiss the
party.

Why? It's to show the public that the party really doesn't
have any ambitions and it only aims to serve the people.