Power sharing could be a key to stability

Power sharing could be a key to stability

By Makmur Keliat

SURABAYA (JP): The outcome of the election has conveyed
disturbing signals. On the one hand, there is continuity. This
has been shown by Golkar's incontestable position. Though the
United Development Party (PPP) performed better in the election,
Golkar is unmatched by any numeric measure. Therefore, it is
impossible to expect that PPP would play a significant role in
the House of Representatives compared to Golkar.

While Golkar and the PPP gained a higher percentage of the
votes compared to the previous election in 1992, the conflict-
ridden Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI) has become a great
loser. But it is difficult to say with certainty whether the
election has signaled a fundamental political realignment in
favor of Golkar at the cost of PDI.

It is most likely that Golkar's landslide victory and the
larger number of seats gained by the PPP was mainly due to
psychological factors on the eve of the violence-marred election.
Supporters of the government-ousted PDI leader Megawati,
particularly those with a Christian background, seem to have
voted for Golkar, while the rest voted for PPP rather than for
the government-backed PDI chairman Soerjadi. As such, there has
been no significant change.

The 1997 election results are similar to the previous
election. Regardless of the fact that PDI obtained a larger
percentage of the votes in 1992 compared to what it gained in
1987, at the time Golkar still dominated the House of
Representatives. In short, Golkar is still at the top of the
list, followed by PPP and PDI.

But there has also been a sign of change. For the first time
in the history of the New Order, the election has been tarnished
by the outburst of frenzy, as shown by the riots in Madura. As a
result, new polls are to be held in several parts of the area.
Other new phenomenon has been the PPP's assertiveness. Despite
the fact that PPP's leader Ismail Hasan Metareum is not a
flamboyant character, PPP protested the election results and
refused to accept the outcome of the election in some places on
grounds of vote-rigging. Amid this situation, PDI has released a
statement that it may pull out of the House of Representatives.

Based on the assumption that only Megawati's camp is not in
the cohort of the election, one could say that all these facts
have portrayed a shattered consensus at the elite level. While
the government has said that the election has been held
"peacefully", "orderly" and "smoothly", PDI and PPP seem to have
taken a different stance. This could pose a serious challenge to
the New Order regime.

First, for developing countries, consensus at the elite level
is decisive in maintaining stability. Malaysia, for example,
suffered a violent conflict in 1969 due to the lack of consensus
between Malayan and Chinese elite. The lack of consensus at the
elite level spilled over into the people and turned into a bloody
conflict.

Another challenge relates to the presumption that the election
would become a sound solution to vulnerable stability, primarily
due to the violence that occurred before the election. This
presumption seems not to have come true. The election seems to
have augmented the problem rather than solved the problem itself.
This could have a negative effect on economic development in
Indonesia, particularly if the situation lingers on.

At this crucial stage, the role that will be played by the
Armed Forces (ABRI) would also be pivotal. ABRI is a very real
political force in Indonesia. Not only is ABRI equipped with
weapons, it is also one of the pillars preserving the New Order
regime. This being the case, one could say that the attitude
shown by ABRI -- even if in the form of inaction -- would be of
importance in determining the sustainability of the political
system. It could either aggravate the existing situation or have
the opposite effect.

It is in this light of political fluidity that the New Order
regime needs to launch sincere political reforms. It is likely
that impressive economic development in the past 30 years has
generated more articulate groups and this, in turn, has created a
drive for change and a demand for new consensus. One of the
logical consequences of the remarkable economic growth has been
that the government can no longer assume that people are myopic.
People have become more knowledgeable and demanded more say in
the decision making process, especially in the urban areas.

Therefore, reforming the political system and improving the
quality of Indonesian democracy seem to be necessary. In this
context, there are two important points which need to be
considered before launching political reforms. First, we need to
define and understand democracy more as a method rather than a
form.

This means that there must be an institutional arrangement in
which individuals, interest groups and political parties abiding
by the rules of the game are free to compete in the political
process. If an elected member of parliament can be recalled
because of his criticism of government policy, then it is certain
that democracy is understood more as a form rather than method.

Second, democracy is characterized not by majority rule but by
minority rule. As Robert A. Dahl (1963) said, not all groups are
interested in every aspect of public policy since they have
different concerns. Accordingly, democracy should not be
understood as a majority rule but a system in which all the
active and legitimate groups in the population can freely
articulate their interest and voice their opinion, especially at
crucial stages affecting their lives.

In Indonesia, the above points imply that the government needs
to accept an idea of power sharing instead of power
concentration. This is not an easy task. The problem is how to
convince the government that the idea is not a menace but a key
to stability.

The writer is a teacher at the Faculty of Social and Political
Sciences, Airlangga University, Surabaya.