People's representatives or party representatives?

The politicians who prevailed in our first free election in 44 years may continue to erode our trust, but Indonesians must keep their faith in the democratic process.

As discussions among experts often suggests, the trouble with our democracy may not lie in the absence of the rule of law, but rather with those who are running it -- those with little virtue.

We repeatedly hear our representatives self-righteously claiming to speak on behalf of "the people's interest".

But our elected officials, admittedly, are not agents of the voting public. Instead, they are token figures of the parties which ushered them in.

False perceptions of their elite positions make many people forget that their presence in the legislative chambers is, in truth, to serve the public interest.

Their feeble oversight breeds politics at its worst, with parties sabotaging each other, or making backroom deals purely for personal benefit.

What is needed is not merely the facade of representation, but the actual extension of political aspirations -- both in the legislative and executive branches.

The key to this answer lies in the systematic change of our electoral system which, in the words of one panelist, could ensure "infallible representation and accountability of our public officials."

But before we can even contemplate appropriate change, we must face the daunting challenge that the supposed stewards of such reform are the very products of our flawed system.

The constitution and other laws, in essence, are a social contract between the people and the state.

They function to limit excess of power; and one of the branches of government they ought to keep in check is both the power of the House of Representatives and the People's Consultative Assembly.

Thus, how can we entrust such radical change in the name of democracy with members of the very institution which it is supposed to place limitations on?

In their objections, our elected representatives always say that, in any democracy, people are free to have differing opinions -- including on questions of electoral reform.

But an elected representative, they say, has a direct contract with the voter, and must heed public desire for change.

The public does not have the equal power of the representative, but the representative is, in fact, the servant of the constituent.

Moreover, "the concept of representation is not understood," a panelist said.

Examples of this can be seen in how parties filter their candidates for election.

"We don't know if someone was appointed candidate because the person was somebody's spouse or son," a panelist said.

"We found more than 100 members of the House in the 1999 election who moved districts, so they could get the necessary votes to get elected," the panelist continued.

"This while the election was supposedly a semi-district system in which the candidates should have been from the district in which they were nominated from."

They were moved "for political convenience by their party's central board ... so it was done without the intention of accommodating people's aspirations," the panelist continued.

We must now seek to infuse democracy into part of the internal mechanism of party politics.

If not, then we may wind up leaving the fate of the country in the hands of political parties that defy democratic principles.

Certain conditions, such as barring single candidate nominees in internal party elections, can be imposed through laws to ensure this process.

Political parties would, no doubt, argue that this is unfair public intervention in internal party affairs.

On the other hand, it could be said that political parties seeking office are public institutions and should be open for such scrutiny.

Political parties also currently receive subsidies from public moneys making public accountability valid.

Under the current system, parties participating in the 1999 general election received Rp 1,000 for every vote they obtained.

A party like the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle is entitled to about Rp 37.5 billion; Golkar, Rp 22.5 billion.

One of the most widely touted proposals, which has also been agreed to, in principle, by the representatives are direct presidential elections.

Such elections, it is hoped, would engender participatory democracy while diminishing the distortions of the system we now have, whereby a president is not elected by a popular vote.

A publicly elected president would have a stronger mandate and would be held more accountable to the people.

More importantly, this arrangement would free the president from political obligations to individual parties, a prevalent issue during the last two presidencies.

One major concern is that more established political parties, namely Golkar, would have an unfair advantage, given their wide network, and seemingly endless resources.

One elitist argument dictates that direct elections are inappropriate, given the low degree of education among the Indonesian people and their limited consciousness of politics.

But let's not forget that this limited consciousness follows 32 years of political repression under the New Order.

Indeed, political parties themselves remain autocratic and willfully neglect to educate their constituents, in ways in which to become involved in politics in a rational manner.

The fact is that the 1999 general election, which held potential for bloodshed, was praised by observers as one of the country's most democratic and peaceful -- which also defeats the argument that the people are not ready.

There are two options available: first, a president and vice president in one package who are elected by the voting public with a majority. Second, two pairs are elected by a popular vote, and the Assembly chooses one of the two.

The first option is clearly the better; but what happens if a candidate falls short of a majority? Does the Assembly then have the right to choose the victor?

Thus direct presidential elections, more than anything else, are today mired in the question about the role of Assembly -- the very institution needed to approve electoral reform.

The Assembly seems intent on somehow preserving its involvement in the presidential and vice presidential elections.

Panelists in the discussion voiced little faith in the overall process if left to the Assembly.

But efforts to refer the matter of electoral/constitutional reform to a public commission have been rejected.

"Any efforts for improvement would be nothing more than horse trading," a panelist said. "Members of the House and the Assembly would enter into deals not for the public good, but for the preservation of their own political interests."

"This can only be cured by a movement from civil society -- but our civil society is still weak," the panelist added. "One effective mechanism, for now, is through independent watchdogs and groups."