Of Bintang and boycotts

Of Bintang and boycotts

Most people may be inclined to dismiss Sri Bintang Pamungkas'
statement of his intention to set up a new political party, the
Democratic Union Party, as rubbish. Such a view is
understandable. After all, Bintang is currently on trial, a
process which may end with his being put behind bars for some
time. Moreover, the prevailing law closes the door to the
establishment of new political parties.

One might also choose to disregard the statement made the
other day by five United Development Party (PPP) branches. They
threatened to boycott the election if manipulation prevails. This
could well be seen as an empty threat because under the
chairmanship of Ismail Hasan Metareum, PPP is known for its
accommodating stance.

But it would be wise to stop short of totally ignoring the two
statements as nonsense. It is better to give them a closer look
to examine more carefully what is behind the moves.

The first and most important point is that the two statements
may represent the prevailing mood of society, notably among the
political elite. This mood is one of restlessness, a feeling that
something is wrong with the whole situation. And for certain
groups and individuals this feeling may have reached the point of
disillusionment and frustration.

One should remember that in the last several years more and
more individuals and groups have voiced their disappointment with
the current political format, which only allows three political
organizations, with the government-backed Golkar as the main
force. The government's strategy of maintaining Golkar as the
major player, as well as the organization's apparent all-out
effort at present to maintain its majority in the country's
legislature, has drawn complaints from the political parties, PPP
and the Indonesian Democratic Part (PDI). Both parties have
accused the government of unfair election practices.

Some observers attribute this dissatisfaction to the failure
of the three political groupings to accommodate the people's
political aspirations. Created by the New Order government some
25 years ago and aimed at preserving the nation's stability,
which is perceived as imperative for development, the current
system is viewed by many as "out of date" and unable to cope with
the growing dynamics of society.

The very success of national development has brought about a
better educated, socially and economically better off
generation, which is free from the trauma of the 1965 communist
coup and the political turbulence of the early 1960s.

Unburdened by these traumas, many members of this new
generation cannot understand or accept the establishment's
repeated rationalization of why the current political system must
be maintained. These young people demand more freedom. They want
more room to channel their aspirations. Some have tried to
establish or join non-governmental organizations only to find
that there, too, they are not free from suspicion because their
organizations have been stamped traitors by the government.

Meanwhile, more and more people in the establishment have come
to feel that the current status quo is being too rigidly
maintained. They, too, feel unhappy and perceive the need for
more room to breathe. Some are really worried about the current
trend, which they perceive as an inclination to return to the
sectarian politics of the early 1960s.

And thus, in the last few months we have seen the
establishment of new organizations, such as PCPP, YKPK, PNI and
Parkindo. Interestingly, many key figures in the new
organizations are Golkar activists, or retired ABRI members.

One could view this new development as a positive
implementation of the freedom of assembly as stipulated in the
Constitution. But it is more likely that the emergence of all of
these organizations has been sparked by that feeling of
restlessness and disappointment.

We believe that this feeling has not yet reached a crisis
point, but without proper handling the situation could easily
worsen. The important point in all of this is that we have yet to
see any positive or concrete move toward dealing with the problem
on the part of the government. What we are hearing now is the
same, oft repeated excuses and defensive lines, such as "the
status quo must be maintained", or "the current political format
is a product of national consensus and there is no reason to
change it".

It is a pity that many of our leaders still refuse to put
their ears to the ground and listen. If they would only listen
carefully they would be able to hear the distant rumble.