People's representatives or party representatives?

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."