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.