NGO's a help not hinder general election

By Angger Jati Wijaya

YOGYAKARTA (JP): Mansour Fakih, a local representative of British-based aid organization OXFAM, has written a number of books on the role of non-governmental organizations in the building of civil society.

Among his books are Masyarakat Sipil. Pergulatan Ideologi LSM (Civil Society: The Ideological Struggle of Non-governmental Organizations) and Menggeser Konsepsi Gender dan Transformasi Sosial (Shifting the Concept of Gender and Social Transformation). He shared his views on the general election and democratization with The Jakarta Post recently.

Question: How do non-governmental organizations view the political events related to the general election in Indonesia?

Answer: There are two major groups with different views. The first group thinks of the general election as a political force in its truest meaning, so that the election should be used to promote democratization. The election should be supervised in a fair and open manner ... (this perspective) has given birth to various independent election monitoring committees.

The second group believes that the election bears little impact on people's lives. This groups views the election as a neatly packaged part of the power plays in Indonesia's political system. They think that unless the laws, system and structure that sponsor the election are perfected, the event will leave no room for hope.

Which group do you belong to?

I believe the election will not meet people's strategic needs because there's no process of political education going on. The election is not an appropriate "political force"... as there is little room to empower the people.

The election has been preceded by unrest in various parts of the country. How do you view these developments?

There is a sense of disappointment with the ongoing (sociopolitical) situation. The slightest incident can easily escalate into violence, as in the case of the riots in East Java's Situbondo, West Java's Tasikmalaya, and West Kalimantan's Sanggau Ledo. Our logic negates the possibility of such small- scale incidents reaching such proportions. If there were other factors, such as a third party behind the riots, then it was a mere trigger. People need an outlet for their long-held disappointments and frustrations, which could lead to violence.

Settling violence with violence begets only more violence in a different form. Basic solutions must be sought or there could be far larger eruptions.

How do you view the presence of an independent election monitoring committee?

This type of committee and its activities should serve as an entry point for a campaign for change. Ideally, they should operate year-round, from one election to the next, monitoring the entire democratic process and decision-making taking place in the face of the push-and-pull of the state's interests and those of the people.

Thus such bodies should be semipermanent in nature. The main problem is the lack of official approval from the state.

No independent election supervision committee has never been legitimized. Why does the state seem worried about the activities of such a body?

The state is worried that such a committee would attempt to discredit the existing power structure, a fear that is unwarranted, as other countries can attest. The state must view the study, observation and assessment processes of the election and political process made by the committee, which should be a standard feature for both the state and public which need democracy.

Can the election be an agent of political change in public and state lives?

I do not see that happening. Whoever wins the election will not be a factor of change under any context.

The main problem within the election -- from the state's perspective -- does not lie in the real dynamics of the three poll contestants, but on whether the activities of organizing the election is legitimized.

The cancellation of campaign activities by the United Development Party (PPP) and the absence of the Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI) cannot be tolerated because they threatened the legitimacy of the election. This could prove to be the start of a disaster for the ruling regime.

What kind of agenda should be forwarded by "fringe" groups like NGOs?

Beyond elections, NGO's must create conditions which allow changes to take place in a fair and democratic way. NGOs can politically educate the public by teaching them about their rights and obligations while observing state policy. For instance, the drive to have the political laws revised should be appreciated as an effort to create a more equitable political system.

Is such an agenda practiced by the existing NGOs?

Many NGOs do not integrate their practical activities -- such as community development, environment, economic empowerment -- with the democratization process and enforcement of human rights or more specifically, civilians' political rights. However, NGOs in the future must implement practical activities and create an agenda where their political activities have direct impact on policy-making processes.

Why haven't many NGOs integrated these two priorities?

Many NGOs analysis are very local and reactive to demands of practical needs. However, keep in mind that the problems are not separated from national policy and the onslaught of globalization. It is impossible for NGO's to be the sole implementors of change.

What factors can bring about faster change with regard to Indonesia's political realities?

Many social theories are convinced that change would occur with the rise of a social movement but many NGOs in this country have been unable to generate that movement. Change cannot happen quickly and requires considerable struggle over a long time.

Please remember that no single person can accurately predict and formulate such a political process in Indonesia. But I am confident that we have history in the making.