PPP's boycott 'meant to resist pressure'

JAKARTA (JP): The United Development Party (PPP) recent refusal to campaign in Jakarta and Yogyakarta was meant to show it could resist government pressure and reject Golkar's domination, analysts say.

Academics Loekman Soetrisno and M. Budyatna said separately on Saturday that underlying the boycott was PPP's objection to the two-way traffic campaign introduced by the government.

The Moslem-based party believed one-way traffic campaigns, with speeches by party campaigners and no debates, were a better way to attract votes, they said.

Budyatna, the dean of University of Indonesia's School of Social and Political Sciences, said Indonesians were not used to debates which often involved harsh criticism.

"Our culture requires older people and people of higher rank to be respected, not criticized. So you just can't expect criticism in dialogs. A monologue by a campaigner would be much more effective," he told The Jakarta Post.

PPP's Jakarta chapter canceled campaigning Thursday after its request for police permission to hold an out-door rally in South Jakarta was turned down.

The party also refused to campaign in Yogyakarta indefinitely to protest attacks by Golkar supporters on two of its offices Wednesday.

Budyatna said the definition of "dialog" in the campaign was unclear.

"The government, and Golkar for that matter, consider dialogs to be the act of inviting people from the audience onstage and asking them if they support Golkar or not," he said.

"If that person says yes -- and the answer is unlikely to be anything else -- the person is given a watch or a yellow jacket," he said.

He said dialogs should not be held in front of a party's supporters but in front of a critical general public wanting to know if their aspirations would be represented by the people on the podium.

Sociologist Loekman Soetrisno from Gadjah Mada University said that although PPP's boycott may be a protest, it could also be a strategy to attract sympathy and support.

"But it is more likely that PPP is tired of being pressured (by the government)," he told the Post.

Monologues

He said monologues, which the government has stipulated should be outdoors, were more attractive to the masses.

"People still see campaigns as a chance to freely express themselves. Under the current circumstances, they feel they can only do this through outdoor campaigns, rallies and motorcades," he said.

Political observer Aribowo from Airlangga University's School of Social and Political Sciences, said PPP's boycott decision came out of helplessness under the current political situation.

PPP, he said, wanted campaigns to be a chance for people to brave the establishment.

"The boycott can be seen as a response to their frustrations ... They see campaigns as a chance to become critical or even destructive toward the state," he told the Post.

He said that only after two or three more campaigns would people grasp the concept of "rational" campaigning and dialog.

Whatever PPP's motivation to boycott, communications expert Alwi Dahlan said, they were the only party likely to be disadvantaged.

"Boycotting the campaign means the party cannot express its opinions nor can it invite people to support it," he said, as quoted by Antara.

Similarly, Aribowo said a two-way traffic campaign was actually good for the PPP and the Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI), as they already have strong grassroots support in East and Central Java.

"If the campaign is done properly, Golkar should have the most to fear from the results because in dialogs, the two minority parties would have a chance to criticize the ruling party," he said.

It was a pity that the PPP, PDI and the public were not prepared for this type of campaigning, he said.

Budyatna and Loekman said it was possible people no longer cared about the goal of the election.

"The election is just a ploy to maintain the status quo. It is only a tool to tell people that Indonesia is 'democratic'," Budyatna said.

The public's enthusiasm for rallies and motorcades showed they wanted entertainment, he said.

"People see campaigns as fun. When they join rallies, it doesn't necessarily mean they're going to vote for that contestant," he said, adding that he knew of parties paying people to join in the rallies.

Loekman said there was a need to redefine the meaning of elections.

Elections, he said, should not be seen as a way to maintain the New Order government -- which was often inaccurately interpreted as Golkar -- but as a time for people to evaluate what their representatives have done over the last five years.

"What's happening now is that elections are being used to tell people they should accept what they have," he said.

"Actually, what people want from the election now is to see one thing happen: the courage to say 'no' to the domination of Golkar. They just need an alternative," he said. (pwn)