Power to the status quo

Power to the status quo

The major political parties, many of which were born of the
Reformation Movement in 1998, have established the status quo and
are now seeking to preserve their power to the exclusion,
inasmuch as possible, of potential newcomers: This much is clear
from the Bill on Political Parties that was endorsed unanimously
by all nine factions of the House of Representatives last week.

The major factions have cut a sweet deal among themselves by
ensuring that actual sovereignty falls into their hands,
particularly the hands of the powerful party bosses, and not in
the hands of the rank-and-files, let alone the electorate.

The bill also ensures that political parties will remain
Jakarta-centric, which runs counter to the spirit of greater
autonomy for the regions. It restricts any debate about
constitutional reforms, and leaves absolutely no room for debate
about alternative forms of government, like federalism, which in
1998 briefly spawned a healthy discourse among politicians.

Where control is lax is in party financing, which once again
opens the possibility of money politics in determining the
outcome of the 2004 general elections.

In many respects, our democracy will suffer a setback if
President Megawati Soekarnoputri signs the Bill on Political
Parties into law. Since her Cabinet and her Indonesian Democratic
Party of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan) were instrumental in drafting
and ensuring the passage of the bill in the House, it would be a
miracle if the President decided against signing the bill.

Besides, the nation is now pressed for time in preparing for
the general elections in 2004. With all its shortcomings, this
bill will have to do as part of the electorate laws allowing the
nation to make logistic preparations in time for 2004. Three
other legislations are still in the pipelines: the Bill on
General Election, the Bill on Direct Presidential Election, and
the Bill on the Composition of the House of Representatives.

The Bill on Political Parties requires a political party to be
represented in at least half of all provinces in the country
(currently 30, but more in the pipeline), and in half of the
regencies/mayoralties in the provinces where it is represented.

This seems like a necessity in order to control the number of
parties in the country. At last count, the government reported
that nearly 200 political parties have registered with the
Ministry of Home Affairs. Meeting the criteria, however, does not
guarantee an automatic right to contest the 2004 elections, and
the Bill on General Elections seeks to impose even more stringent
criteria.

While some restrictions are necessary, they should not hamper
the emergence of political parties offering alternatives to the
policies put forth by the major, status quo parties. Going by the
meager performance of the parties represented in the House, this
country definitely needs new political alternatives.

The bill also stipulates that the political parties not only
have the right to nominate their own candidates to run for
elected offices, but also the right to remove them from office
even after the candidates have been elected by the people. This
power to recall the elected officials runs counter to the
constitutional spirit of giving sovereignty to the people.

Meanwhile, the requirement that a party must have its
headquarters in Jakarta effectively supports the concentration of
political power in the capital, when the present need is to
devolve power, particularly political power, away from the
center.

This and the clause that parties must not threaten the unitary
state of Indonesia in their activities also effectively rules out
the emergence of regionally based political parties seeking to
promote interests and causes particular to their regions.

Ironically, a political party may be formed on the basis of
shared religion, race or ideology, but never on the basis of
shared geographical, or regional, interests. All these issues
possess equal potential of becoming explosive. If anything,
though, religion, race and ideological issues are potentially
more divisive than regional causes.

A two-party system is the most ideal, if not practical, for a
functioning and stable democracy such as that practiced in the
United States and most other advanced countries. One party
represents the conservative elements in society, and another the
more liberal and progressive elements. These parties take turns
in government depending on the mood of the people.

As an emerging democracy, Indonesia has not reached that ideal
sophistication necessary for a two-party system. In fact, given
the diversity of the people, and considering the failure of the
existing major political parties in representing the diverse
interests of the people, then simplifying and rationalizing the
number of political parties should not even be contemplated.

Instead, voters in this country should be given wider choices
in 2004, not fewer. Sadly, the factions ruling the House of
Representatives have conspired, through the Bill on Political
Parties, to deprive us of that privilege.