Political parties still lack maturity

Political parties still lack maturity

A'an Suryana, Jakarta

Most of the major domestic political parties recently
completed their respective national congresses, and most chose
new leaders. But, in contrast to the general and presidential
elections last year that ran smoothly, the congresses of the
political parties -- be they the Indonesian Democratic Party of
Struggle (PDI-P), the Reform Star Party (PBR), the National
Mandate Party (PAN) or the National Awakening Party (PKB) to name
a few, were marred by violence as well as alleged bribery and
vote-buying all of which served to tarnish democracy.

The recent political party congresses were also marred by
internal disputes, clear evidence that our politicians have not
yet matured.

Instead of accepting defeat in party elections like
statesmen/women, some groups and individuals are now planning to
abandon the parties and establish splintered parties. The culture
of "not accepting the defeat" has apparently been deeply
entrenched among our politicians and of course, it is detrimental
to the politicians themselves.

Having not accepted defeat, the public will judge them as
immature and narrow-minded.

Sadly, such immaturity also has been shown many a party boss.
Instead of making rules that ensure just and fair election, the
party bosses have allowed their inferiors to produce rules that
only serve their own individual interests during the party
election. How can we expect a just and fair election if the rules
of the game have been tainted by conflicts of interest?

Needless to say, if we look back at the congresses, we can
easily make a conclusion that they have not been a lesson in
democracy. Instead, we can conclude that the congresses were, at
best, an example of a kindergarten democracy.

As the congresses are now over and the new party leaders are
consolidating their power, there is one question that is still
interesting to discuss.

Why democracy worked during the general election and
presidential election, but faltered during the party congresses,
while involving essentially most of the same actors? There are
three factors that can explain this. First, in party elections,
the party bosses are able to arrange the rules so it favors their
chances of winning, despite protests from opposing camps. This
power has often been abused by the party bosses, which has a
detrimental on democracy.

However, in the presidential and general elections, the power
to establish the criteria and regulation is vested in a neutral
party, namely the General Election Commission (KPU), so that the
rules of the game ensure neutrality and fairness.

Second, the party bosses can easily control the party members
whose political career depends on the party's survival.
Charismatic leaders such as Megawati or Amien Rais, for example,
could quite easily tell party members that if they do not vote
for them -- or their chosen protege -- they will quit the party
and the party will surely lose a significant amount of public
votes in the next election. But, in a presidential or general
election, the situation is not that simple. The public is a free
entity, and they can not so easily be coerced into voting one way
or another because they have nothing to lose.

Third, in party elections, party bosses can bribe sometimes up
to 2,000 or 3,000 party members to vote for them, but how can
they feasibly afford to pay off over 100 million voters during
general or presidential elections?

Given those three factors, it will surely be difficult for
political parties to be completely democratic during internal
party elections. There will always be the temptation by the party
establishment to exert power for their own benefit. It also
creates a window opportunity by which losing candidates can
renounce the election outcome, as the rules were made to favor
the status quo.

However, despite all these factors that impede democracy in
party elections, political parties in the country have to start
pondering the lessons from these faulty elections. The internal
party squabbles have drained a lot of party energy that really
needs to be used to consolidate the party to attract more voters.
The internal disputes will also surely reduce party popularity
among the public, and thus decrease the number of votes. The
political party decision-makers should have been aware of this
consequence and they should have prepared a strategy to curb the
conflicts, but in reality, the internal disputes will cost them
dearly at the nationwide polls.

The key word here is maturity. The costly internal disputes
and violence would never have occurred if the politicians in
charge of these parties were mature. Maturity would mean they
have to make sure that rules that guide the party elections are
fair and just. And they have to be heeded, so that every attempt
to bend them has to be foiled.

The establishment of splinter parties has become ubiquitous in
national politics as those who lose party elections feel that
they were cheated by party bosses during party election. Most
people can generally accept defeat if they are sure that the
election was carried out fairly.

The author is a staff writer at The Jakarta Post.

Internal disputes during and after party congresses

PDI-P

A group of key figures has threatened to establish a splinter
party after the party congress in Bali, as they were greatly
dissatisfied with Megawati being reelected as party leader.

PAN

Some party members went on a rampage during party congress in
Semarang, because they were not allowed to enter meeting hall to
vote for new leader due to membership problems.

PKB

Alwi Shihab's camp insisted that it would not accept the outcome
of the party congress in Semarang, where Muhaimin Iskandar was
chosen as the new party leader.

PBR

A group of key leaders in the party did not accept the outcome of
party congress that reelected Zainudin M.Z. as party leader.