Is opposition a must for a political system?

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): A few days ago I received a telephone call from a journalist in London. He asked me whether the inclusion of all the major political powers in the new Cabinet meant that there was no longer an opposition in Indonesian political life. He asked me further whether I thought that such a situation was healthy for Indonesia.

It happened that a few days prior to this telephone call my friends and I within the legislature had discussed this situation. We thought that since our party was part of the new government, it was inappropriate for us to act as a formal opposition force. But we also realized that we were in legislature to represent the people in our respective constituencies. For this reason we decided that we would act first and foremost as representatives of the people, and only afterwards as members of a political party which had become part of the new government.

On the basis of this reasoning we concluded that whether we would agree or disagree with the government on any given policy would be decided by whether or not a particular policy would really serve the interests of the people. If, in our opinion, a given policy did not benefit the people we must oppose it, and suggest an alternative. If, on the other hand, a given policy was fully in line with the interests of the people, we must support it.

We further agreed that we should call ourselves a corrective force, not an opposition force. We think that if all parties supporting the new government allow their representatives within the legislature to act as a corrective force vis-a-vis the government, then there would be no problem in ensuring that the new government will always follow the right track.

Having come to this conclusion, I had no problem whatsoever in explaining our situation to the journalist in London. But this smart journalist asked what, in my opinion, was the essential difference between a "corrective force" and an "opposition force", and whether my party would allow me to behave the way I envisaged I would in the legislature.

I could at the time not give a clear-cut answer to the first question. I just mumbled a few vague sentences and promised to give him a better answer next time. As to the question of whether my party would allow us to do what we had in mind, I answered that, in my opinion, there was no reason for the party leadership not to give us its consent. I believe that if my party is genuinely democratic-minded, fulfilling a corrective function vis-a-vis the government should neither be a stigma nor a sin.

When I gave this answer I was not aware that there was something in the party system called "party discipline" that may curtail or even reject this view of mine. So I said further that, in my opinion, prohibiting us to play a corrective role would mean that the party renounces its character as a democratic organization. Forcing party members in the legislature to approve everything the government does would mean a return to the practices of the old New Order. We will then just become an Orde Baru Reformasi ("re-formed New Order"), and not a true Orde Reformasi (a true Order of the Reform Movement).

Because I was not entirely sure that my reasoning was correct, I looked for references that could help me verify my it. I found several quotations which suggest that expressing different opinions is not only permissible, but also essential for maintaining and sustaining human freedom. First I found a statement by Benjamin Disraeli (1804 - 1881) who said in 1844 that "No government can be long secure without formidable op- position." And Justice Robert Jackson (1892 - 1954) stated in 1943, "Freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order." And John F. Kennedy mentioned in his State of the Union Message in 1963 that "The unity of freedom has never relied on the uniformity of opinion."

These pronouncements reinforce my conviction that fulfilling the role of opposition through expressing well-founded opinion that differs from that of the government is essential for preserving the political health of the country. Thus 'opposition' to me does not merely mean "a political or an organized group opposed to the group, party or government in power." That is cheap opposition. Good opposition or what Disraeli labeled "formidable opposition" is always corrective in nature.

We should bear in mind, however, that fulfilling corrective opposition is neither easy nor comfortable. According to Julius Caesar a good oppositionist never operates on the basis of hatred or grudge. He was quoted in Sallust's Conspiracy of Catiline as saying, "All men who reflect on controversial matters should be free from hatred, friendship, anger, and pity." It should be obvious from this statement that it takes men and women of courage, passion and wisdom to organize a formidable opposition. Martin Luther King reiterated this same inference when he said in 1963, "The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."

After reflecting on the meaning and implications of all these wise sayings I began to wonder whether this new House of Representatives really has the capacity to play the role of good and formidable opposition vis-a-vis the new government. Or, perhaps it is more apt to ask, "What will it take for this new House of Representatives to develop itself into a good and formidable opposition?"

This is a question worth reflecting on for those who are determined to reject the prospect of being a member of a rubber stamp legislature.

The writer is a member of the House of Representatives from the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan).