PPP's boycott 'meant to resist pressure'

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)