Internal conflict sign of parties' immaturity: Experts
Tony Hotland, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta
So much for maturity, let alone democracy, when political parties, which are supposed to serve the various interests of their members and supporters, instead pursue their own conflicting interests.
The internal rifts inside some of the country's leading parties that have exploded into the public view in the past few months are a sign of the immaturity of our political parties, according to several observers. These rifts also carry with them the considerable risk of rolling back the progress the country has made toward democratization.
Some of these parties were already dealing with dissension ahead of their national congresses, like the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P), the United Development Party (PPP), the National Awakening Party (PKB) and the Reform Star Party (PBR), all of which had internal disputes that resulted in either splinter factions or the unilateral dismissals of party executives.
A political analyst with the Indonesian Institute of Sciences, Ikrar Nusabakti, said such internal squabbling was an embarrassment to the democracy Indonesia was trying to build, and that parties that could not handle their own disputes were incapable of leading the democratization process.
"There are three things that are apparent here. It shows that internal conflict management is not working, the hunger for power overrides the desire to sustain party ideology and the future of the party, and the internal consolidation of the parties is ineffective," he said.
Moreover, said Ikrar, these parties were risking the trust of their supporters. Nurturing public confidence should be a top priority for the parties if they wished to fare better in the next elections.
"Regardless of who is right or wrong, (the disputes) have damaged their ability to organize themselves. How are they going to organize the larger public then?" he said.
The PDI-P, PPP and the PKB performed well in the 1999 elections, but all received fewer votes in the 2004 polls.
Ikrar said these conflicts could mean less opposition for the government due to the stalled internal consolidation of parties.
"Note that conflicts like those in the PKB or the PPP involve party members who are in the Cabinet. Who knows whether they really want to lead the party or just want to guarantee their posts in the party in case the Cabinet is reshuffled," he said.
A political analyst at Airlangga University in Surabaya, Daniel Sparringa, said there was an oligarchy of older politicians who were putting the brakes on internal reform in some parties.
"These parties are going through a democracy deficit, where their elite members cannot seem to follow in the steps of a modern party.
"They do not have an ideology to glue them together. There are only a few exalted figures who have turned the parties into personal property or use their positions to get posts in the government or even money," said Daniel.
He warned that this would hurt democracy, which requires healthy political parties, as well as cause political disorientation among voters.
"Breaking up parties is never good because it only leads to the creation of more parties, while an ideal democracy here should only have about seven sound parties," Daniel said.
In the end, such conflicts are good news only for those parties that, at least in front of the public, can manage smooth successions of power and show to the public a good image.
"For now, this includes Golkar as a nationalist-oriented party and the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) for religion-based voters," said Daniel.
People's Consultative Assembly Speaker Hidayat Nurwahid, a former PKS leader, said parties needed to settle internal conflicts with dignity to provide the public with a good political education.
"The public is more critical now and they will note these conflicts. Their supporters could abandon them," Hidayat said.