Party takes bold step towards maturity

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): The decision of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDIP) leadership to expel 17 of its members, to discharge two of its members from their present party posts, and to issue a stern warning to 25 members for their lax undisciplined behavior is a very bold step that merits praise.

It is also very courageous of PDIP to reveal, albeit indirectly, that the 17 members who were expelled from the party were found guilty of involvement in money politics.

Rumors about practices of money politics within this party have been going on for some years now. The most talked about issue was that certain party functionaries extracted money from those who aspired to become members of the national and local legislature, both at the provincial and the district level, running on the PDIP ticket.

When the general elections were over, and the composition of both the national and local legislature was settled, the practice of money politics shifted to providing political support to candidates for executive positions, from candidates for provincial governor down to candidates for mayor and bupati (district head).

Providing such support consists of two steps, that is writing letters of recommendation at the beginning of the race and mobilizing support from members of the local legislature at the time of actual voting.

The first step can be done only by party bosses, persons of high position on the central executive board. There were instances where the party issued two letters of recommendation to two different candidates for one contested position.

That means that the party has actually no official guidelines concerning whom to support and whom to oppose in any contest. It all depends upon the personal choice of individuals in the party interested in playing the game of money politics; and the result depends, in many instances, upon which candidate is willing to pay the highest amount of money.

This practice was condemned by many party members, and they expressed their disapproval loudly and clearly, so that it was just impossible for the party bosses not to hear these dissenting voices.

But in most cases such protests seemed to fall on deaf ears. The result was at times very ironical. Even in places where PDIP constitutes the majority in the local legislature, the winners in such contests were not PDIP candidates, but candidates from other political parties with much smaller representation than PDIP.

Another irregularity within PDIP which became the focus of public gossip and criticism was the formation of delegates to the PDIP Congress in March 2000 in Semarang.

Two kinds of irregularities happened in this instance. First, about 27 districts sent two delegates (double representation) to this congress. And in each case both delegates were equipped with valid credentials.

It was very obvious that someone or a group of persons within the political hierarchy above the district level were playing a foul game. And that such a violation of a basic organizational rule happened in 27 places was a clear indication of the lack of basic discipline and the sense or organizational order among party functionaries who were operating at a fairly high level.

The second type of irregularity was the presence of district representation consisting of persons whose eligibility was questionable, while at the same time other persons from the same districts were present claiming that they were the real representative of their district, but that they failed to obtain the necessary letters of credentials from their party superiors.

In one case the violation of the rule was so blatant in that the representation of a district consisted of persons who were not even registered as official members of PDIP in that district, while at the same time a number of persons who genuinely came from that district and had been functioning as party officials for quite some time could not enter the premises of the congress because they did not have the necessary credentials.

This violation of basic organizational rules became so embarrassing that a physical fight broke out between two contending delegates at the premises of the congress. Again it was very clear from these incidents that someone or a group of persons, either at the provincial level or higher were trying to get personal, financial or other kinds of benefit from this "political transaction."

Against this background it was really a relief to hear this belated decision made by PDIP. Hopefully from now on PDIP will be able to heal itself from this harmful political disease.

What is the reaction of the rank and file within PDIP after this bold decision was announced? One reaction that reached me directly was that of relief but also of skepticism and despair.

Some members wondered why no punitive actions were taken against party members who occupy positions within the higher echelons of the party hierarchy, but have also been known to most party members as playing the same dirty game of money politics or showing a similar lack of party discipline. Why is such a good policy implemented in a discriminatory way?

"What will be the long term impact of such discriminatory practice?" someone asked me. "I don't know," I said, "but I think it will depend upon the follow-up measures that will be taken in the immediate future."

Is it only PDIP which is plagued by this particular disease? Are the other political parties immune to this disease and therefore as clean as a whistle in this regard? Are there no practices of trading political favors for money, big money, in the other political parties?

Hopefully, but I am afraid the reality is uglier than what we all wish.

My skepticism is based upon my understanding that money politics or other forms of political malpractice that afflicts a big political party during any period in history is a cultural disease that affects the entire political system.

If I am not mistaken in the history of any nation any form of "political pathology" is a sign of a Zeitgeist, a spirit of the time, that dominates the entire nation for a given period of time.

I do not think therefore that at the moment there is a political party within our political system that has escaped this Zeitgeist of ours. Only a political party comprising saints can resist any kind of political disease.

Do we have the courage to acknowledge this fact?

And if we do, what can we ordinary citizens do to prompt all political parties toward measures to increase not only their organizational morality, but their ideological maturity as well?

Only after we have acquired insight into this question will it become possible for us to pave the way toward a national political life that is not annoying, but appeasing, assuring and promising.

The writer is an observer of social and political affairs.