'National politics resembles shadow boxing'

As May's general election nears, people are anticipating important political events to unfold. Sociologist Arief Budiman analyzes the nature of politics in Indonesia.

SALATIGA, Central Java (JP): Politics in Indonesia is like shadow boxing: a battle of symbols. One never attacks an opponent's real power, but hits the symbols of that power.

So too our nation is governed by symbols, many of which have little substance. Let me elaborate.

We have a House of Representatives in which some members are elected and many are appointed every five years (if we talk about the People's Consultative Assembly). However, should they "misbehave," a political mechanism is there to unseat them, even if they are from non-government parties.

When people have grievances they often go to this state institution that supposedly represents them. And often legislators are available to listen.

Then, if necessary, the House will ask the relevant cabinet minister to testify. Statements by the minister are published in the media and, usually, that's the end of it.

But people keep coming to the House.

Today more people are going to the National Human Rights Commission, not because it is more powerful but because the three-year old body is more ready to hand down critical evaluations.

Legally, the House has more power to scrutinize the government's performance than the commission, which has only a moral power. The Coordinating Minister for Political Affairs and Security, Gen. Soesilo Soedarman, recently accused the commission of going too far by trying to involve itself in solving problems relating to alleged human rights violations. The commission has had to take a step back, to do their "proper" job.

People keep coming to either the House or the commission, knowing full well there is only a slight possibility they will receive assistance; many come as a symbolic gesture to express their protest.

An example can be seen in the aftermath of Megawati's ousting as head of the Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI). Megawati has taken the case to the court, where it is publicly known there is practically no chance to win against the government. However, Megawati instructed PDI branches across Indonesia to do the same. In each trial -- though especially in Jakarta -- PDI supporters have been mobilized to give support, as if there were hope of victory.

For those who don't understand Indonesian political culture, these actions seem futile and incomprehensible. They are absurd, like Sisyphus pushing the rock to the top of the mountain, only to be kicked down again by Zeus.

The PDI is conducting a symbolic political opposition, attacking the legitimacy of the government's actions and exposing the unfairness of their intervention.

Another case of the use of symbols in our nation's political dialog is the recent white-washing of traffic signs in Solo by members of the United Development Party (PPP), earlier painted black and yellow by Golkar. Yellow is the color of Golkar, and traffic signs the world over are black and white. In spite of this, the regional government chose to repainted them yellow.

Everybody knows this is a disguised early campaign by Golkar and explains the PPP's action. The mayor of Solo threatened to take the case to court, but the local PPP -- aware of popular support -- said they were ready to face a legal battle.

This is another case of shadow boxing. Although the PPP may have won the battle, the victory is still in the realm of the symbol and does not change Golkar's real power. Or perhaps it does, and Golkar and the government are slowly losing both their legitimacy and the trust of the people.

The general election has been dubbed "the festival of democracy". There are many festivals during the election campaign (or there were until recently, when the government prohibited mass public rallies for the coming election), but very little democracy. The general election is more a symbol of democracy, a ritual with little substance. Nevertheless, people still join in enthusiastically, as if it were a festival.

The present trial of the PRD leaders also continues to loom large in the nation's psyche. There was not enough evidence to support the initial charges of organizing the July 27 riots for which they were arrested. The leaders have now been put on trial because their organization did not state Pancasila as its basic principle. For this, they have been accused of conducting subversive activities against the state.

Pancasila is a symbol, its substance manifested in the deeds performed by people or an organization: this is the exact line PRD defense attorneys have taken. They have said even if the PRD did not have Pancasila as its basic principle, its stated program to help workers and promote democracy in Indonesia were the components of Pancasila. However, it is unlikely this line of argument would be taken seriously by the court, because in the present political culture, the government treats symbols as importantly -- if not more importantly -- than substance. Both the government and its opponents are playing the same game: shadow boxing and battling in the realm of symbols.

So, what we now get is the symbol of political participation by the people in the form of House, the symbol of democratic process in the form of a general election, the symbol of the rule of law in the form of court processes. All lack real substance. However, as Javanese philosophy dictates, we are very lucky because we at least have symbols. Substance will come in due time, conclude the ever-optimistic Javanese.

Unfortunately, we have now been waiting for 30 years.

The writer is a noted Indonesian sociologist and researcher.