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.