Party takes bold step towards maturity

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.