Is opposition a must for a political system?

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).