'Local parties would not lead to independence'

The government's decision to allow the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) and other groups in Aceh to set up their own local political parties has been called quite controversial. The Jakarta Post's Sri Wahyuni talked to political expert Pratikno of Gadjah Mada University about the issue. The following are excerpts from the interview.

Question: What is your comment regarding the demand (for political participation in Aceh)?

Answer: The establishment of a local political party in Aceh gives the hope of a switch in GAM's movement from the armed, physical one, which is clearly unconstitutional, into the formal, institutionalized, political one. Yet, it also invites new problems, especially regarding whether the switch in the form of the movement will also be followed by a switch in the goal of the fight. Will the party be used to control the government to work for Aceh's interests or will they use it for fighting for independence?

If they plan to use it to campaign for independence, there will be no room for such a mechanism in the format of a Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia (NKRI). Such a mechanism will only work in a federalist country, in which the central government entity is agreed upon by all of the political communities, or all the states, in the respective federal system.

In a federal or semi-federal political mechanism, a state can have its independence if all the other states in the respective federation agree to give it independence, a standard mechanism in other countries. The case with Quebec in Canada, or the Northern Ireland in the UK are examples.

In other words, if GAM has the purpose of using a local political party to fight for independence or it is given the chance to fight for independence through a local political party, constitutional support is required.

What do you mean by that?

This means that as long as it is provided within the context of the unitary state, a local political party will not create an opportunity for them to have independence through a constitutional political mechanism.

If they still want to have that, then they have to go back to their armed, physical struggle. In other words, if the central government still has the control over the armed forces, the chance for an armed movement in Aceh will not be there.

Some people worry that other regions will demand the same thing. Your comments?

I am among those who believe that once GAM's demand is approved, other regions in the country will also demand the same. They want their own local political parties. Why? It is because local politicians have been feeling a great amount of dissatisfaction against the political parties on the national level. One that has made them very annoyed is the excessive centralization.

At the time that decentralization was completed and autonomy provided to regional administrations, those same principles were not given to political parties in outlying provinces. It is a real phenomenon. One of the most recent examples is political parties on the regional levels intervening in the decisions of their candidates for a regional election. That is why local political parties will become a nationwide demand.

Is that not good for the country?

It will very much depend on whether it has a serious impact on the law on political parties. Giving local political parties a chance to get established, would need particular requirements and prerequisites.

There are indeed some advantages if local political parties were established in all regions across Indonesia. Among others, they will revise the floating political parties or centralized political parties that do not work on the grassroots level. They will also promote contextual governance at the regional level. The other advantage is the possible emergence of political parties that are more grassroots-based.

All, however, must be followed by the mechanism for a coalition between local political parties as well as between local and national political parties to emerge when they deal with the national election. Otherwise, it could create some complex problems.

Firstly, when local political parties and political parties on the national levels are to form an affiliation ahead of a national election, the process opens the door for vote-buying and bribery.

Secondly, when local political parties can easily be established in any region, it can be easily predicted that the proliferation of political parties will prevail. Once it prevails, it will be difficult for the political party system to be simplified, and so in turn could also lead to a chaotic transition in the democratization process.

Proliferation of political parties, too, will make it difficult for the parties to form coalitions among them. Why, because none of the existing political parties has a clear platform, it will also be difficult for us to find the similarities as well as the differences among them.

What is your suggestions regarding this?

There must be a willingness among the existing political parties on the national level to clarify their platforms. The clearest platform that needs to be made distinct, according to me, is "the economic ideology". Whether they offer a global or social mechanism in the economy will become a clear pendulum, or a basis of ideology, for forming coalitions.

The basis of ideology or the pendulum now varies quite a bit, ranging from religions, regions, history and many other group identities. Unless something is done about it, it will be just duplicated in the establishment of local political parties in the regional levels once it made possible.

The problems related to political parties cannot be dealt with by regulating the mechanisms. It is parts of the parties' internal process. But, we can engineer the process through political education and public pressure.