Political elite: Enemy of democracy

By Muhammad Qodari

JAKARTA (JP): The General Elections Commission (KPU) has faced several public protests, including a recent "sadistic" one by the Student Action Committee for Reform and Democracy. The protesters slaughtered a goat and brought its bloody head to KPU members.

Such protests are explicit manifestations of people's anger with controversies in the KPU. The controversies -- starting from the delayed ballot count to the problem of selecting interest group representatives for the People's Consultative Assembly -- came one after another and they all showed that KPU members preferred to look after their vested interests.

The KPU, which was originally tasked with carrying out the general election and other related tasks according to the public's interests, has practically become a vehicle for the political elite to look after their own selfish interests.

Veteran political observer Arbi Sanit from the University of Indonesia said Agus Miftach, the chairman of the committee selecting and verifying the interest group representatives, for example, tried to allow the Indonesian Forestry Society (MPI) and the Indonesian Environment Development (BLHI) -- to both of which Agus belongs -- pass the selection and verification process in an improper manner.

The results of the June 7 general election showed that Agus' party, the Indonesian People's Party (Pari), failed to gain adequate public support to win a single seat in the House of Representatives.

Agus' tactic was contrary to democracy for at least two reasons. First, his party failed to gain the people's trust in the general election. Second, MPI and BLHI are not truly representative of non-governmental organizations in Indonesia. Both organizations have yet to make any contributions to society.

KPU member and political scientist Andi A. Mallarangeng said that instead of MPI and BLHI, Wahana Lingkungan Hidup (Walhi) should be represented in the Assembly because it was recognized not only by domestic, but also international forums. Walhi executive director Emmy Hafild, for example, recently received an award from Time magazine for her distinguished devotion to the promotion of environmental protection.

Besides KPU members, other political elites have become the enemies of democracy. Executives of Golkar Party, which did not win the majority of the votes in the past elections, for example, have insisted on making incumbent President B.J. Habibie their presidential candidate. They argue the general election was merely a mechanism to select House members, not a president. Thus, even if a party wins the general election -- particularly if it only wins a simple majority -- it is not automatically allowed to control the presidency. By this logic, the process of democracy is divided into two separate "rounds". Just like in a two-round boxing match, a party knocked down in the first round may get up to fight again in the second round.

Actually, the general election should be regarded as one holistic mechanism of democracy, from the election of House members to the formation of a government -- including the president. Democracy should be defined as government by the people, who hold the highest sovereignty, with its implementation carried out by their representatives elected through general elections.

So the logic must go this way: If the majority of the people voted for the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan) in the past elections, they did not merely appoint their representatives to the House, but they also decided to make the party's chairwoman -- Megawati Soekarnoputri -- their presidential candidate.

A recent poll jointly conducted by the University of Indonesia's Political Science Laboratory and Ohio State University's Department of Political Science showed there was a consistency in the percentage of votes for PDI Perjuangan (33.7 percent), the percentage of people who supported the party (33.7 percent) and the percentage of people who supported Megawati (38.4 percent).

So far, the democratic-illiterate political elite are looking for arguments to legitimize their decision to nominate their own presidential candidates -- who would indeed be illegitimate if he came to power in such a legally dubious way. They argue a presidential candidate will automatically become president if his or her party wins more than 50 percent of the total vote in the general election. But, according to political science lecturer Cornelis Lay from Gadjah Mada University in Yogyakarta, no party will be able to win more than 50 percent of the vote in a multiparty system like Indonesia's, where 48 parties contested the elections. An absolute majority is only possible in countries with a dual-party system, such as the United States.

During the Soeharto administration, when three parties contested the general elections, Golkar was able to win more than 70 percent of the vote merely by manipulating the vote tally.

PDI Perjuangan's 33.7 percent of the vote is more than enough to give Megawati a legitimate basis to hold the presidency. Those who disagree will argue that 66.3 percent of eligible voters did not vote for PDI Perjuangan. But this percentage does not represent a single party, and the recent elections were not a contest between PDI Perjuangan and "others".

Thus, PDI Perjuangan should have the right to carry out the people's mandate.

By the same logic of democracy, it is a pity to see "reform locomotive" Amien Rais of the National Mandate Party (PAN) -- who delivered a speech on democracy-illiteracy on the day he was appointed a professor -- is now the one promoting such illiteracy by forming the "axis force", although he committed himself to promoting a reform agenda with Megawati in 1998. More importantly, Megawati confirmed her commitment to reform through her speech on July 29, 1999. This means the axis force has already lost its argument for excluding PDI Perjuangan.

If the axis forces continues to insist on supporting its own presidential candidate -- Abdurrahman "Gus Dur" Wahid of Nahdlatul Ulama -- it will be no different from Golkar.

What the axis force should do is socialize its reform agenda, both to Megawati as well as other Indonesians. Judging Megawati's competency as president will only be appropriate after she is running the government.

At its simplest, the process of democracy can be seen from two different perspectives: As a struggle for higher values or as a struggle for vested interests. With few exceptions, the second perspective has dominated the Indonesian political climate for more than 30 years. Of course, struggles for political interests are not totally wrong because they are a part of the political game. However, the power contests must remain within the corridors of democracy.

In a period of transition as the nation heads toward reform, discourses on democracy as a struggle for values have not been adequately developed by Indonesia's political elite.

It is ironic to find that the so-called reformist political elite are transforming themselves into the enemies of democracy, or even clowns of democracy.

The writer is a social-political observer currently working at the Institute for the Study of the Free Flow of Information (ISAI) in Jakarta.