Political parties and their leaders' plight
Political parties and their leaders' plight
Frank Feulner, State -- Civil Society Adviser, United Nations
Support Facility, For Indonesian Recovery (UNSFIR), Jakarta
Indonesia's national politics have been affected by the
ongoing economic crisis and major social conflicts simmering
throughout the country.
The 1999 elections were a historic milestone, but
democratization does not end with general elections.
In the period between plebiscites, party politics seem to be
taking precedence over national politics.
We can see this in the debate over high ranking party
officials holding concurrent posts -- a debate which involves all
major party leaders right down from President Megawati
Soekarnoputri, Vice-President Hamzah Haz, Speaker of the House of
Representatives Akbar Tandjung, Speaker of the National Assembly
Amien Rais to Minister of Justice and Human Rights Yusril Ihza
Mahendra.
There's growing frustration about how to resolve this thorny
issue i.e. that party leaders who make it to a top political post
are not considered true leaders of the nation if they do not give
up their party leadership posts.
What the public worries about most is that personal or group
interests are being placed over national interests. Political
parties are driven to play their role which is crucial in a
democracy, that is to act as a channel of people's aspirations
and as a tool to find majorities for decisions in parliament.
However, a just and fair democratic system cannot be achieved
overnight and major deficiencies still exist.
Among others are mistaken perceptions about the functions of
political parties, restrictive internal party rules and an
electoral system of proportional representation that still
ensures continuing control of party leaders over their party
members and which does not allow voters to directly elect their
candidates for parliament.
There are two main strands of thought on the issue of
concurrent posts. One says that top party leaders who hold public
office but who refuse to give up their party posts are selfish.
These people are accused as not taking into account the wider
public interest but are only acting for their own short-term
interest and therefore cannot be seen as true statesmen.
The public eye is directed at the party leaders of the biggest
political parties holding the country's major public offices --
politicians from the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI
Perjuangan) and the United Development Party (PPP), from the
Golkar Party, the National Awakening Party (PAN), and the
Crescent and Star Party (PBB).
There is resentment over the double ownership of posts because
of the perception that high profile national politicians do not
only belong to their parties but exist to serve the people.
Others argue however, that it is exactly for the reason of
maintaining a healthy democracy, that political parties are
needed. Ideally, political parties formulate and present
alternative choices on how major issues should be tackled.
On election day, based on the choices on offer, citizens then
cast their votes for a political party in order to make their
preferences heard. Parties draw up their lists of candidates
standing for election and upon winning certain seats in
parliament these are filled accordingly.
It is exactly through this process that office holders gain
their legitimacy and by putting the parties' programs into
action, the holders of public offices via the parties still
remain accountable to the people.
This is the theory but the Indonesian political reality looks
different. The political landscape suffers from a paucity of
alternative policy options and the dominance of party leadership
boards over their respective members at the base together with an
inadequate election law make simple black and white positions on
the issue impossible.
It is unrealistic to hope that politicians will serve the
national interest without distraction. At the same time it is
naive to think that the existence of political parties will
automatically lead to accountability to citizens.
Polls among Indonesian voters have shown that the various
party agendas are almost unknown and votes are usually cast with
regard to the individual at the helm.
The opportunity for political leaders to abuse their powers
for party interests are evident and the reports in the media on
the common practice of traveling to party gatherings on state
expenses is only one example. The problems political parties in
Indonesia face today were created during the New Order period.
Since then, non-accountability of parties to voters is paired
with personalistic leadership boards.
The fact that Golkar was not considered a political party
during the Soeharto years meant that all its representatives
acted in their own individual interest. However, their position
was generally seen as a Golkar position.
Unless political parties reform themselves and create
democratic structures from within by allowing party members to
choose their leaders and election lists freely, they will not be
able to fulfill their viable function in a democracy.
Structural changes to the political system need to be made so
that there is more accountability. Direct elections of the
president would be one step; introducing the possibility of
electing party candidates for national and regional parliaments
directly, and allowing the voters to move preferred candidates up
onto the election list would be another.
Party platforms have to become more issue-based, hence
widening the choice of the voters. Additionally, the decision of
whether Indonesia should opt for a real presidential or real
parliamentary system is long overdue.
In established democracies elsewhere, the doubling of
government positions with political party positions is not an
issue.
A systemic transition towards democracy is a long process and
the arena for free public discussion of pressing issues in
Indonesia is ready to be used.
The views reflected in this article are strictly personal and
do not necessarily represent the views of UNSFIR or any other UN
agency.