Legislative representation is getting better

Legislative representation is getting better

The question of representation in the general election, which
was addressed in this column on May 10, gets a response from Amir
Santoso, a senior lecturer from the University of Indonesia, who
notes that despite its shortcomings, progress has indeed been
made in this respect in Indonesia.

JAKARTA (JP): The election process in Indonesia may differ
from developed countries which use a single-member constituency
system. But there are still a lot of questions being asked on who
Indonesia's election represents. The people of course, but who
are they?

Even though a political party's central board still has a
dominant role in determining a legislative candidate, in my view,
there has been some progress made in representation, especially
in this year's general election.

Today, a legislative candidate can no longer be solely decided
by a board to represent a particular region, as was the case some
years ago. The candidacy must have support from the party branch
at a regency level.

In Golkar's case, before someone can be included on a
provisional list of legislative candidates, Golkar's board has to
get approval from the group's regional branch.

A letter of recommendation from this level is also needed
before being processed by a party's provincial board, prior to
being sent to the central board.

For Golkar, support from each level (regency, province and
central board) is not everything because candidate hopefuls come
from one of three different sources: the Armed Forces, the
bureaucracy and Golkar, each of whom has the power to veto.

It is not uncommon to find a candidate being rejected by one
of the three levels of the party or by one of the three sources,
resulting in a failed candidacy or being forced to move their
representation from one regency to another or from one province
to another.

Although a candidate finds his or her name on the provisional
list, there is no guarantee that he or she will get a place on
the final list.

The public has a full month to scrutinize candidates and, as a
result, some names are pulled off the provisional list.

Of course during the candidacy period, there are lobbies among
the various levels and among the various sources.

This is worthy to note in the progress of the country's
democratization process. Although the central board still has a
strong bargaining position in the process, it seems that regional
and provincial branches of the party are gradually practicing
their own independence and autonomy.

Of course we are free to dream that Indonesian legislators
will have similar qualities to those in developed countries. But
the problem is that the dream must also be in line with the
reality of Indonesia.

During military screening (litsus), for example -- and this is
based on my own experience -- candidates are asked if they would
seek to establish a religious state if their party wins the
election. Is this a dangerous dream or not?

For me, this idea is still dangerous, because I am a Moslem
nationalist who believes that Indonesia should not become a
religious state.

In developed and democratic countries, all people have the
right to have their own dreams, even when they try to realize
those dreams. But for Indonesia, where most people still have a
low level of political awareness and maturity, the masses can be
easily mobilized to make dreams come true.

It is true that we also need people who have ideas like Sir
David Steel, who said that someone must listen first to his own
conscience before listening to his own constituency and his
party.

But for people to have the caliber of Sir David Steel
(referred to in May 10 article), how many years will be needed?

Maybe ten, or perhaps a hundred years. Indonesia has shown
that it can make step-by-step progress, even if it cannot satisfy
everyone, especially those on the periphery.