PDI rift reveals political vexation

PDI rift reveals political vexation

By Ignas Kleden

JAKARTA (JP): The Indonesian Democratic Party's internal
conflict and its unexpected aftermath is a reflection of both
political dissatisfaction and political aspiration.

Last month's government-backed Medan congress has turned out
to a trigger, which has unleashed nationwide demonstrations and a
denunciation of the legitimacy of elected party chief
Soerjadi.

Besides this, since embattled party chief Megawati
Soekarnoputri decided to file lawsuits against certain government
officials and against Soerjadi, support from Indonesian lawyers
has poured in, stating their readiness to defend Megawati in her
legal battle.

If one looks at the rally held at the Indonesian Democratic
Party (PDI) headquarters in Jakarta and if one takes into account
the intensifying support for Megawati, as reported by the press,
one cannot help asking: How is it possible that demonstrations
and statements of support increase from day to day despite the
official prohibition of political demonstrations?

This is all the more striking if take note of Megawati's
statement that PDI undertakes nothing to receive such wide
support, which she and her people in fact had not reckoned with.
There are, it seems to me, two main things at stake.

First, there is a widening dissatisfaction with the decisions
of the Medan congress for both legal and political reasons.
Second, it seems that a political aspiration towards something
which is not yet clear has come to birth.

The legal dispute is still going on among the professional
lawyers as to whether or not the congress was legal.

Some lawyers point out that the ambiguity of certain clauses
in the PDI constitution has given rise to the contending
interpretations of the legality and authority of a national
assembly and congress.

However, the political dissatisfaction has something to do
with the fact that an internal conflict within a political party
has become an opportunity for intervention from outside.

This has gone so far as to give the impression that an
internal conflict, unless it is tackled by means of interference
either from outside or from above, will remain unsettled.

On a more concrete level, the staging of the Medan congress
has wounded the public's sensibilities, whereby many people feel
that it was a measure which did not do justice to the then-
incumbent leader of the party.

However, one can raise the question as to whether the
dethroning of Megawati is the cause, or whether it is simply an
opportunity in which dissatisfaction is voiced. That is to say,
the case of Megawati is rather an epiphenomenon of public
response to the present political system.

Political dissatisfaction is but one side of a coin, the other
side of which is inability of the political system to adjust
itself to the ongoing political changes.

A political system, just like a linguistic system, can only
survive as long as it can manage to absorb new developments in
political behavior, or linguistic behavior, and provide them with
a place to function in.

A political system's capacity can be measured by its
flexibility in adjusting to the changes taking place, whereas the
lack of capacity is shown by the rigidity with which it excludes
the new patterns of thinking and behavior as unusual, abnormal,
improper, or even pathological.

An effective political system takes into account, adopts and
makes use of new patterns of political behavior and new
perspectives in political thinking; whereas a rigid political
system tends to secure and to salvage itself in the face of many
new developments which occur outside the system leading to its
gradual petrification.

In doing so, it alienates itself from political realities,
whereby its correspondence with the real political aspirations
are being weakened, ignoring the emergence of new patterns of
political behavior and new views in political thinking, which it
cannot afford to accommodate.

In this connection, Megawati seems to be a rallying point for
those whose political behavior and political thinking are often
overlooked by those within the system, either by labeling them as
discontented dissenters, a free-thinking minority, outspoken
liberals or uncompromising human rights fighters. Their number
may only be few but they are said to be skillful enough to speak
on behalf of an allegedly major pressure group.

In fact, the strategy of trivializing is very common in
realpolitik, because by so doing one expects to lessen the
demonstrating effect of a political or social movement.

However, this strategy does not help very much if one is faced
with a massive support as it is in the case of Megawati's
supporters. The most likely way out is to look into the causes of
dissatisfactions which bring those people together.

In other words, the case of Megawati is a test case for the
present political system in dealing with widening
dissatisfaction, as well as an early warning signal about the
flexibility of the present political system in accommodating new
development in political behavior and political thinking.

On the other side, however, those who continue to stick by
Megawati should not be considered as people simply trying to get
rid of a certain situation but should also been seen as people
aspiring to something they perceive as different or even better
than the present condition.

There are, that is to say, new political demands which are not
sufficiently met within the existing political system.

The question is: Do the people support Megawati simply because
they are politically discontented or because they are also in
search of political ideals or even political programs which can
meet their political demand?

Solving the political dissatisfaction is the job of the
present political system but meeting the new political demand is
another task which is to be attributed to everybody who is
concerned about the political life in this country.

I would argue for the time being and capitalizing on the
present momentum, that this is a task which should be assumed by
Megawati and her people. In the long run, nobody can rely only on
one's dissatisfaction. People need something which can respond to
their political aspirations and meet their political demands.

In that sense, there is an objective necessity for Megawati,
or anyone else who feels responsible towards the people, to
figure out a political program which corresponds to the new
aspirations. A program which in one way or another can ensure
that the rising expectations are more than just a political
seductive mirage but something legitimate which can be realized.

This is a political challenge for Megawati and for people
within and outside the government. It becomes a political ground
for competition between contending political visions and
operations, in which, analogically speaking, political goods are
to be exhibited to would-be buyers, whereby only those who can
offer the best quality with the lowest possible price have the
biggest chance to win most buyers, which provide political
profit.

In that sense, success or failure depends very much on some
level of the economy of political production as well as political
marketing.

On the first level, the questions are: what is to be produced?
Which political visions and political programs can be brought up
and offered as a political supply? Do they correspond to the
actual political needs of the people?

If one looks at the present development, there are some
political needs which tend to push for economic, social and
political tradeoffs.

Contending interest in various sectors is emerging. This is
visible in areas of growth and employment; wealth and justice;
security and freedom of expression; capital and morality;
symbolic religious piety and a real search for religious truth;
the scope of intellectual movement and the force of intellectual
inquiry; exposure to globalization and new need for security
within local boundaries; integration to the international market
and the need to salvage cultural identity; physical construction;
and adventurous imagination.

If one can figure out some of the new needs and is able to
translate them into workable political programs, there is a real
possibility to win the sympathy, support and even political
enthusiasm of the people.

However, the programs can only be established if one has in
mind what kind of society the country is to head for. In that
sense, it is very important to provide the people with some
political visions, whereby the ideal society is figured out and
the way towards that envisaged society is shown.

Political marketing will also play an important role. How do
we convince the people that the programs at hand are worth
accepting and, with their support, worth realizing?

Political rhetorics seems to become a necessity in that
connection. In a situation where even language has been
bureaucratized, rhetoric tends to stand for a bad meaning.

It is usually understood as a verbose statement which lacks,
or at least distorts, the message conveyed. However, rhetoric is
basically a practical discourse, a stylistic packaging of a
political message in order to provide it not only with
explanatory but also with persuasive power.

At that level, there are many possibilities which can be
pursued because there seem to be many possible tradeoffs as well.
Those are the choices between apparently sophisticated obscurity
and simple clarity; between the propensity to cover up bitter
realities and the courage to call a spade a spade; and between
coward euphemism and courageous straightforwardness.

Fortunately, by her nature, Megawati seems to be endowed with
some of the important features which might be brought up as
alternatives to the dominant political practices.

Her simple mind, heart and words are in contrast to the
hullabaloo of political jargon, her low profile to high politics,
her ethical attitude vis-a-vis political calculation and smart
opportunity-seeking.

Of course, the people around Megawati have to work harder in
order to be able to provide her with political views that can
meet the rising political demand of her followers.

After all, people live not by protests and demonstrations
alone but also by ideals which articulate some of their
aspirations, which otherwise remain unspoken and even repressed
into unconscious and unintended oblivion.

The writer is a sociologist now working with the SPES Research
Foundation, Jakarta.