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.