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the nation's stability, which is perceived as imperative for development, the current system is viewed by many as "out of date" and unable to cope with the growing dynamics of society.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.