Money politics burdens democratization

Money politics burdens democratization

Money Politics -- Pengaruh Uang Dalam Pemilu (Money Politics --
The Effects of Money in Elections); By Indra Ismawan; Media Pressindo,
Yogyakarta, April 1999; iv and 82 pages

YOGYAKARTA (JP): Money used as a means to gain political power
is not a new practice. Nicolo Machiavelli once stated that any
way can be used to get power. "The buck stops here", said former
U.S. president Harry Truman. Even the president seat in U.S. can
cost US$70 million to $80 million.

In Indonesia, the Lippogate/Riadygate incident was a turning
point for money politics discussions. Other cases which come to
mind are the abasement of Jamsostek (workers insurance) funds in
the discussion of the Manpower Law; Golkar's congress; the
massacre of dukun santet (suspected shamans) in East Java; and
the mobilization of a militia.

These are what Indra Ismawan mentions as the prologue to this
book. The phenomena of money politics is like an iceberg. Why?
From the spreading discourse, money politics has not been
perfectly profiled. The demarcation line between money politics
and political financing is still very vague.

Even Law No. 2/1999 on political parties does not talk about
money politics. If there are rules about the source of a
political party's funds, what is discussed is the stream of the
funds from the donor. Ismawan states that such rules are only
effective for the new parties, which are still mobilizing funds.
What about the established parties that are already rich? This
condition gives the parties the opportunity to hand over funds to
the voters in order to get the political benefit.

There are different ideas about the meaning of money politics,
which makes it difficult for the public to judge the maneuver of
the groups. On the other hand, it becomes easy for the political
actors to make justification. Ironically, the justification made
by a player of money politics is hard to verify, or at least to
clarify, to reveal the real substance of the problem.

For a time, this problem will keep growing in a value system
which justifies the hidden practice of money politics. Hidden or
not, money politics is a dangerous virus for democratization.

Ismawan defines money politics as every effort or action plan
that uses money with a political motive (every action that uses
money convertibility), in order to influence the receiver to do
or not to do some action for the sake of the giver.

This transaction has the potential to raise a distortion to
the pureness of political process and to blur the essence of
democracy.

Money politics on a national scale is a reproduction of events
in a smaller and more limited scope. At the grass roots of
democratization, like the election of a village chief, money
politics largely expands. As it happens all the time, it is
considered normal and people are no longer aware of its danger.

Money politics which is committed institutionally rather than
individually, is as dangerous as violent intimidation. It is even
more systematic and well camouflaged.

A floating-mass politics which eliminates individual loyalty
to a political party is a precondition of money politics.
Corruption as a social-cultural structure which has been well-
tended since the colonial era is also a significant precondition
of money politics. Thus, money politics is, indeed, inherent to
the corruptive-culture.

An increase in the "absolute poverty number" opens
possibilities to commit money politics. A rich party will play
Santa Claus to the poor and get community sympathy. The handover
of social safety net funds is presumed as a camouflage of money
politics.

According to the process, money politics in elections is
divided into two fund streams. First, funds flow from donor to
party. What often happens is that the donor, in return, demands
privileges, consensus or any other economic benefit from the
party.

Second, funds flow from party to voters. The motive behind
this is trading of voters' right.

Loyalty and volatility of the party mass are also important
factors to know whether money politics is increasing or
decreasing. It is assumed that money politics cannot flourish in
a loyal mass. In reverse, money politics will flourish in a
volatile mass.

What has been happening in Indonesia since 1998 is a turn from
loyalty to volatility of the mass. There is disequilibrium as a
result of a growth of new parties. The effect which is instantly
seen is a decrease of traditional voters' loyalty. In such
conditions, a single majority no longer exists.

When the money politics discussion is taken as a destructive
potency, there is an early warning. It comes from the fact that
there is always a certain party that uses its power, including
money, to win the political competition.

The danger of money politics can be eliminated through a
voters' education program. This program can also create a group
of election monitors at the grass roots.

Any action to eliminate money politics, in the long-term,
should have a built-in corruption sweeping program. This is
related to the fact that money politics is always part of
corruption, collusion and nepotism, which are inherited from the
New Order.

This book is five-chapter compilation of articles and columns.
Despite its unsystematic plot, the book could become a discourse
of education process related to the 1999 general election.

-- Ag. Prih Adiartanto