PDI-P needs new paradigm, tools for 2009 elections

PDI-P needs new paradigm, tools for 2009 elections

Mochtar Buchori, Jakarta

While the official vote-count may still be ongoing, it is
almost certain that the Megawati Soekarnoputri-Hasyim Muzadi pair
has lost the presidential race, and Gen. (ret) Susilo Bambang
Yudhoyono (SBY) will become the country's sixth president along
with his running mate Jusuf Kalla as vice president.

The contest for the national leadership for the 2004-2009 term
has already been settled in a definitive way -- as with
Megawati's Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P).

How will the party react to this new situation? It will take
some time before PDI-P can take a united stand as a political
party in facing the new challenges of the future.

It will be better for the party if it concentrates from this
point forth on preparing itself to perform better in the 2009
general elections. There are many, many things to do.

It would be very desirable if, among others, the party managed
to heal its many internal wounds by 2007.

It should be noted in this respect that the next general
elections would probably take place under conditions different
from what we have today. The economic condition will be different
-- hopefully better, but it could also get worse. The electorate
will be different, and we will have a public that is more mature
politically. In addition, the security situation will most likely
be different from the situation today.

With all these probable changes, it would be very unwise for
the PDI-P to enter the major political contest of 2009 without
renewing its intellectual arsenal -- it would be utterly
impossible to perform adequately in the next general elections
using the same political paradigms and tools that proved
disastrous this year.

To compete and succeed in a changed political environment,
PDI-P will also have to change, and the party must meet certain
requirements to change for the better.

First, it must make an honest assessment concerning the main
causes for its present defeat. It must ask itself why, within the
short period from 1999 to 2004, it lost so much of its popular
appeal.

Second, it must decide whether it really wants to become a
democratic party that is run in a genuinely democratic manner, or
whether it wants to preserve its current character as a pseudo-
democratic party, run in a semi-autocratic manner.

PDI-P has lost much of its popular appeal through the public
perception that it is a corrupt party. In the public eye,
corruption appears rampant among PDI-P legislators, both at the
national and local levels. In addition, the public believes that
members of the party's executive councils -- from the national
all the way down to the district levels -- are tainted by
corruption.

The public verdict on the PDI-P is thus truly devastating: It
is a corrupt lot. The extent to which this allegation is true is
inconsequential; this is how the public perceives the party.

It is thus interesting to note in this regard the speculation
made by some observers -- that voters flocked to the Susilo camp,
not so much because they were convinced that Susilo had the
capability to bring about those changes for which the people had
been yearning, but more so because of public conviction that the
PDI-P under Megawati would not be able -- and probably would not
ever try -- to stop corruption.

It is this very image that PDI-P must change. As long as this
perception persists, it will never regain the popular appeal it
enjoyed in 1999, no matter what it does.

The third imperative is for the PDI-P to affirm itself as a
party that upholds democracy as a political system.

As a party member, I often have the impression that PDI-P is
embracing democracy in name only. The way it conducts its day-to-
day business -- insofar as the central executive council is
concerned -- is far from democratic.

What has been carried out in the name of the party has seldom
been the decision of the entire party leadership. Rather, they
have been decisions taken by mighty personalities within the
party. Thus, the ensuing impression is that those decisions were
made to suit the interests of a few at the top.

If PDI-P wants to win back the trust of its rank and file, it
must change the style of its leadership. Furthermore, if it wants
to contribute to the democratization of this nation, it must
start adopting democratic practices in its political conduct.
Unless this is done immediately, PDI-P will become a burden to
Indonesia's blossoming democracy, which has gained enough
strength and can now be stopped only by brutal totalitarian
force.

Is the PDI-P ready to make this change? Under present
conditions, this is rather unlikely.

There is still another argument for suggesting change within
the party: It never discusses scenarios for the future. Neither
the old guard nor the new guard shows sincere concern in this
matter. Its interest seems firmly planted in the present, and the
party seems to think that whatever comes in the future is the
problem of the next generation -- it has nothing to do with the
current generation. Furthermore, there is not the slightest
indication that the party leadership intends to change this
tradition.

The consequence of this myopic view is that PDI-P has never
conducted, as far as I know, serious discussions concerning
Indonesia's role in the global dynamics of the present.

For a political party as large as PDI-P, this is a serious
shortcoming. While young people from various non-political
organizations have begun to talk intelligently about global
issues that will affect Indonesia's future, PDI-P politicians
mumble incoherently about a vision and mission they do not even
understand.

It is against this backdrop that more and more members have
started talking about the need for radical changes in the party
leadership. The argument is that those responsible for the
present disaster must be held accountable.

So whither is PDI-P heading?

The writer is a House of Representatives legislator of the
Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) faction.