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)