Internal conflict sign of parties' immaturity: Experts
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.