JP/7/IGNAS27

Political survival or political change?

Ignas Kleden Sociologist The Center for East Indonesian Affairs (CEIA) Jakarta

"My loyalty to my country ends where my loyalty to my party begins." This paraphrase of an old political saying seems to hold true for us today. Party politicians do not ask what their party might contribute to the country. They ask instead what enables the survival of their respective parties and how the country and the public should be molded to fit that goal.

The debate about the new elections law is a good case in point. The larger political parties, such as the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan) and Golkar (the former ruling party), have not bothered much about important points relating to the electoral system.

Should voters choose a political party or an individual candidate? Clearly, voters are better off voting for the individuals they know, taking into account their skill and integrity, and commitment to democratic principles.

Voting for a party would imply that the people would delegate their right to elect their party and that they would simply have to accept the persons appointed by the party.

Thus, the more direct the election, the greater the possibility that voters can decide the future of politics. Conversely, the more indirect the election, the greater the power and influence the party politicians would have to give shape to the future of national politics.

People wondered why Golkar, as a larger party, did not approve a direct election, saying instead it agreed with the "open proportional system" of election.

A clause was added in the law to say that in the event a voter only perforated the symbol of a party without perforating the name of a candidate, his vote would be treated as valid and countable. In contrast, if a voter happened to perforate only the name of a candidate without that of a party symbol, his vote would be invalid. Media reports showed that this might be a sly trick on behalf of the larger parties to maintain their domination.

Also obvious is the apparent horse-trading between PDI Perjuangan and Golkar in a joint effort to gain the upper hand. According to the new elections law, politicians who have been named as suspects are entitled to be elected. This smells strongly of the interests of Golkar in nominating its chairman, Akbar Tandjung, who has been sentenced to three years' imprisonment, although he has appealed to the Supreme Court.

Those in public positions are also allowed to participate in the election campaign. This formulation will soon remind even the most stupid citizen of the interest of PDI Perjuangan, the United Development Party (PPP) or the National Mandate Party (PAN), to which belong current government VIPs.

Yet another effort is being made to prevent the councils of regional representatives (DPDs) having more political influence vis-a-vis political parties. It seems that the new elections law and other initiated reforms are intended to create a stronger representation of the regions in national politics.

However, such good intentions face the attempts of the larger parties to secure their hegemony. It was originally proposed that DPD members should not be elected and recruited from among party members who were expected to occupy seats within the House of Representatives. The hope here is that national politics would not be dictated entirely by the larger political parties.

This attempt at political reform is now confronted by some larger political parties that want to bring in their members into DPDs, under the pretext that party members should be entitled to some seats within the council of regional representatives, otherwise those seats would be occupied by the military only. That is highly dubious in the face of new developments.

First, the dual function of the military has been at least formally revoked since the time of the administration of then president Abdurrahman Wahid. Since then the Military has given up its institutional participation in national politics. This means the engagement of military people in politics can be carried out legitimately on a personal basis, without any military ties.

Secondly, the assumption regarding prospective Military domination within DPDs implies an underestimation of the capability of civilian politicians at the regional level. Meanwhile, the idea of having a council of regional representatives was initially to overcome dissatisfaction with the existing political parties.

National politics should not depend on the whim of political parties. This is because larger parties often rely more on the majority of votes at their disposal, rather than on the substance or nature of political issues.

For example, instead of pushing for a legal regulation that prohibits the simultaneous assumption of public office and the carrying out of a party function, legislators now tend to approve rules and regulations that allow and enable officials to participate in political campaigns for the next general election. The survival of political parties seem to be the No. 1 priority, whereas political changes toward democratization are set aside or are made to wait for "Godot".

Besides, corruption and money politics are not a rarity among the parties. The financing of the next election campaign has become the main focus of most, instead of the financing of their political programs. A lot of money is being spent on the attainment of power, but only very little is allocated for the use of that power in programs that might benefit the constituencies in particular, and the people at large.

Politicians are very much tempted to undergo a role seduction of becoming the middlemen who are willing and prepared to serve anybody who can pay.

Many now understand that a great deal of public interest is not yet represented by the political parties. Who, among party politicians, cares about increasing unemployment and who gives special attention to the rising number of the poor, for instance?

Third, party politicians who occupy the legislature turn out not always to be necessarily the best brains in this country, nor the most solid personalities on which to rely. This is reflected in recruitment of House candidates, often done on the basis of whether the candidates are loyal to their party -- even if this might be detrimental to the public interest.

We must trust our political parties because no democracy would be possible without their existence and operations. However, while the parties have yet to mature, we can only hope that the experiment with the councils of regional representatives will be able to cover the deficit within political parties.

Their role should be encouraged in order to be able to take over some political roles that used to be neglected by the parties.

The crucial question is whether most members of the political community are oriented toward political changes that facilitate political reform and democratization -- or whether most are more comfortable with the existing status quo, where survival seems to be the only concern of party politicians.