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.