Lessons from the campaign

By Aleksius Jemadu

BANDUNG (JP): Few people foresaw the formation of a coalition between the United Development Party (PPP) and Megawati, the deposed Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI) leader, before this year's election campaign began. Yet, in the strange turn of events that often define politics, it is now close to a reality, looming as the possible catalyst for tremendous change in the power configuration among the political parties.

Both PPP and Megawati seem to think that the only way to challenge the ruling Golkar's supremacy is to make a coalition. Moreover, as far as Megawati's loyalists are concerned, abstaining in the polls would simply lead to the strengthening of Golkar's political domination.

Fortuity had a hand in the coalition. PPP was obviously unsettled by several of its former vote getters switching their allegiance to Golkar. At the same time, Megawati and her followers had yet to recover from the "wounds" inflicted by the government-backed congress which reinstated Soerjadi as PDI's leader. Thus it appeared a sensible choice for the two groups to unite their strength against the ruling party.

The government appears unhappy with the coalition. Minister of Home Affairs Yogie S. Memet stated the "Mega-Bintang" banners and slogans, joining Megawati's nickname and the Indonesian word for the PPP's star symbol, breached election rules and an agreement among the three parties in the May 29 election (The Jakarta Post Tuesday, May 13, 1997).

PPP leaders argued the coalition is the result of a spontaneous decision of the people and free from outside engineering. If this is true, then the government would have no strong foundation for imposing a ban. After all, Golkar itself has enthusiastically welcomed conversions to its party by PDI and PPP members. On top of that, there is the matter of basic rights so well protected by our constitution.

It should be noted, however, that the government's uneasiness with the coalition is not without foundation. The combination of PPP's strong religious rhetoric and Megawati's commitment to defending interests of the disadvantaged could jeopardize Golkar's supremacy. If the coalition remains intact, it is very likely the upcoming election will become a "battleground" for Golkar on one side and the "Mega-Bintang" coalition on the other. This is based on an assumption that the Soerjadi-led PDI would become increasingly unpopular and many of its supporters would join the coalition.

This begs the question: If the government's success in sustaining economic growth can be said to be something the ruling party can capitalize on, why does it seem the people want more than just development progress? Is it the case that higher living standards of the Indonesian people have led them to demand a more democratic and transparent political system?

In order to answer the above questions we need to examine how the New Order government has dealt with people's demand for political participation in the political system. No one can deny that over the last three decades the government has played a central role in the creation of political institutions, such as the legislator, political parties, mass organizations, intellectual associations and professional organizations.

But as a result, the country's grassroots population, the lay people, have been left behind and become an inarticulate mass. Moreover, the government tended to integrate the leadership of political parties into the existing political regime. The government normally justified its intervention by offering up ideological rationalizations. However, as people's economic welfare increases, political cooptation such as this could create new problems. At the same time, the ruling political party seems to be unwilling to share power with other groups in society.

State corporatism is a concept which is normally used by political scientists to describe interest intermediation within the New Order's political system. By using this strategy, the government takes the initiative to establish patterns of interest representation which link different segments in society with the state.

There is a fundamental difference between corporatism and pluralism as forms of interest intermediation. The former relies on channels of representation which are engineered by the government and are differentiated on the basis of their respective functions. The latter is an arrangement which is less structured as different political groups are organized independently. The corporatist strategy always seeks to eliminate any spontaneous articulation of interest. The Mega-Bintang coalition should be viewed as a demand that the Indonesian political format should be ready to anticipate the dynamics of people's political aspirations.

It is not easy to say in advance how far the Mega-Bintang coalition will go. Some believe the coalition is little more than a crude tactic of the two groups to gain as many votes as possible in the election. They argue that marked differences in ideological orientations would prevent the two groups from coming up with a common political platform. It is not so much common political beliefs which have united the groups but the government's attitude which they consider discriminatory against their respective interests. Therefore, as long as they focus on their allegations of the government's discriminatory politics, the coalition will survive and even get stronger.

Whatever scenario lies ahead, there are important lessons that we can learn from recent political dynamics during the election campaign. First, economic progress may not necessarily lead to a more democratic political system. It is the government who has the responsibility to initiate political democratization. Political pluralism is an inherent necessity in Indonesian society. Economic progress which is not followed by democratization will produce social economic injustice and exploitation.

Also, even though the use of the corporatist strategy has contributed to the creation of political stability over the last three decades, the approach has also sparked endless rivalries within political parties. The unreconcilable antagonism within PDI has created the so-called "inarticulate people" who are systematically alienated from the political system. These are the people who tend to deviate from legal rules and commit violent acts.

We need to redefine the concept of political stability. There must be a clear distinction between political stability for the sake of public interest and that for the perpetuation of political power of the ruling elite. We need to put an end to the overlapping of political stability as the foundation on which the accomplishment of economic growth can be based, and political regimentation to suppress opposition groups.

Last but not least, the spontaneous emergence of the Mega- Bintang coalition indicates that people's bargaining position vis a vis the ruling power is getting stronger. It would be unwise for the government to react too severely to this phenomenon.

Nor would it be necessary to be overly suspicious. The reaction of the "little people" in following their conscience should be considered progress; a healthy conscience can only develop fully within a democratic political system. I wonder if we are moving into that direction.

The writer is a lecturer in the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences at the Parahyangan Catholic University, Bandung.

Window: There must be a clear distinction between political stability for the sake of public interest and that for the perpetuation of political power of the ruling elite.