Money politics 'rare' in Indonesia, says Castle

Money politics 'rare' in Indonesia, says Castle

YOGYAKARTA (JP): The June 7 elections will be the second
multi-party poll held in Indonesia. Australian-born political
observer Lance Castle, who has been studying Indonesia for more
than 40 years, is optimistic the election will bring democracy
here.

He spoke to The Jakarta Post recently.

Question: Many people think the 1955 elections were the most
democratic ever held in Indonesia? What do you think about the
1999 elections?

Answer: The same. Only, at that time (1955), the people had
not predicted that four parties -- Masjumi, the Indonesian
National Party (PNI), the Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) and the Indonesian
Communist Party (PKI) -- would come out as the biggest, holding
70 percent of the votes almost equally.

Now people are already assuming that only five or six parties
will win the majority of the votes, and their proportion will be
unbalanced. One party, namely the National Mandate Party (PAN),
will have the highest vote of about 45 percent. Then the
Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan) with a
vote of less than 45 percent. And then the National Awakening
Party (PKB), the United Development Party (PPP) and Golkar. The
sixth, with the lowest votes, could be the Crescent Star Party
(PBB).

Will the elections improve Indonesia's situation?

Elections are a democratization process carrying a blessing
for Indonesia. It will answer (grievances) such as corrupt,
collusive and nepotistic practices.

In the Soeharto era one couldn't expect any sincere effort
from the government to wipe out corruption, collusion and
nepotism. How could you expect such a thing if the president
himself gave the worst model of nepotism?

Many have been worried that riots could still flare up because
there are so many parties.

Why? What's the relevance between the numerous parties and the
riots? It's not logical to predict such a thing. The ongoing
riots, like in Ambon or Sambas, have no relationship with multi-
parties at all.

But clashes between supporters of particular parties do occur
in several places...

With three contesting parties, there were also clashes between
supporters. I think it's just the logic of Indonesians who think
that with only three parties, there were clashes. What if there
are 48 parties contesting in the elections?

Some believe that such a situation is beneficial to the status
quo. If they meant it's beneficial to Golkar, it's nonsense.
Golkar is finished.

How can we say an election is successful while another is not?

As long as you let those who want to vote do so, you can say
that it's a good election. You don't need to see it (the success)
from the number of voters participating in the elections.
Choosing not to vote is also a choice. It's the credibility of
the elections that matters. For me, the most important thing is
election or no election.

Do you think riots in Ambon or other places will influence the
election?

I don't think so. Why? In 1955, there were even rebellions in
three provinces. Darul Islam in West Java, Daud Behureuh in Aceh
and Kahar Muzakar in South Sulawesi.

In South Sulawesi, thousands of people could not even be
registered to vote because of the critical condition. Their
region was controlled by Kahar Muzakar. If I'm not mistaken the
number of people who could not be registered reached 60 thousand.
Yet, the elections went on. Now, people in Ambon can still cast
their votes.

The latest example was the Sanggau Ledo riot preceding the
1997 elections. Thousands of people died, but the elections went
on. No one thought that there would be no elections because of
the riot. So, why are you now thinking of such a thing?

People are just looking for reasons to be gloomy, to be
pessimistic. It's weird. Many Indonesians are out of their minds.

Some believe that a particular group is behind the riots. Your
comment?

I don't think so. It's also part of the madness that makes
people think that such a group exists. The group is you, the
media. It's the media who has made people feel that the group
does exist, that there is engineering behind a particular riot,
that there is a status quo, money politics, conspiracies,
disintegration, bloodshed and so forth.

What do you think about money politics?

The case of money influencing politics -- in the sense that
you can buy votes in any way -- is rare. It's a myth. If it's
true that money decides, Soeharto would be still in power. He has
more money than anyone else has, and so do his cronies. Yet, he
was defeated. He is out. I don't think there is a money factor in
politics.

What about distributing money to pedicab drivers to make them
attend party gatherings?

It's okay. Amien Rais once told people who were offered money:
"Just take it. Then vote for another party as a punishment for
the party who gave you money."

Again, you cannot buy votes. If you have a good product and a
popular candidate, money will come.

In the UK, U.S., or Australia, there is always a more
conservative party and a more liberal one. The UK, for example,
has Conservative and Labor parties. The Conservatives have more
money than Labor has. Yet, both parties have each ruled the
country for an almost equal length of time. The same thing
happens in the U.S..

What about money politics in the New Order era?

The New Order was in power first and then forced the rich to
throw money away on (Golkar) campaign activities. Now, rich
people are having fun. They are free to give their money to any
party they like. (swa)