Lessons from the campaign

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.