Predicting the shape of our future politics

Predicting the shape of our future politics

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): The departure of Soeharto as Indonesia's
president will likely be followed by the emergence of new
political forces and the decline of old established ones.

To use the famous terminology of the late president Sukarno,
the New Emerging Forces (Nefos) will be in the ascent, and the
Old Established Forces (Oldefos) will be on the descent.

The rise of Amien Rais as a prominent figure in the opposition
camp is a sign of this tendency. And it is not unlikely that
other personalities representing new political forces will emerge
before too long.

On the other side of the political spectrum, it is becoming
increasingly apparent that certain personalities from the old New
Order are loosing their appeal with the public and are struggling
hard to keep their heads above water by performing political
acrobatics.

Maurice Barres, a French novelist and politician had an
interesting remark about political acrobats. He said, "The
politician is an acrobat. He keeps his balance by saying the
opposite of what he does."

Some of these political acrobats sound sincere in their
"repentance" but most sound hollow and cheap. Totally
unconvincing. At the moment it is still unclear who among these
old political personalities will survive, and who will definitely
have to go.

To a great extent, the survival of these old political players
depends on their ability to shift from the old political language
to the new one, the language of reform.

Those who sincerely believe in democracy will have no
difficulty in speaking this new language, but those who deep in
their hearts still believe in the politics of indoctrination and
repression to preserve power will have great difficulty in
speaking the language of reform.

What will the new political landscape look like? It is still
too early to talk about the configuration of the coming political
forces. One thing is sure, however, that the existing system
comprising three political groupings -- the United Development
Party (PPP), Golkar, and the Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI)
--will not suffice to accommodate the political forces that exist
in the Indonesian cultural soil, whether active or dormant.

My guess is that there will be more political forces coming
into existence both in the "Islamic" camp, represented now by
PPP, and in the "democratic" camp, represented now by the
practically paralyzed PDI.

The Megawati-Soeryadi divide in this camp has become an
irrelevance and the urgent task this camp has to perform is to
demonstrate that it can regroup and consolidate itself fast
enough to take an active and intelligent part in the next round
of the country's political life.

What will happen to Golkar? Will it be able to preserve its
present hegemony or will it experience a gradual reduction in its
political significance?

I don't know. It depends on how Golkar is going to define
itself politically in these coming days. If it cannot get rid of
its present image that it is the party of the bureaucrats, I
think it will soon disintegrate. Bureaucrats and a government
bureaucracy can never evoke an appealing image among the public.

If, however, Golkar can convincingly show that it is
converting itself into a party of "politically independent
professionals" -- as the name implies -- then perhaps it will be
able to attract the sympathy of a new generation of potential
politicians who have lost their faith in the old political
personalities, in the old political parties and in the old
political system.

But creating this image is not an easy task. Professionalism
without political coloring has never been an image that Golkar
can create in the public mind. Golkar has always been perceived
as a political creature of the ruling elite.

How will the political make-up of the "Islamic" and
"democratic" camps change?

On the Islamic side, it has been felt for a long time that PPP
cannot attract all Islamic forces in the country into its fold.
Especially after it has been clearly demonstrated that the PPP
leadership is not sensitive toward certain political aspirations
of today's Indonesian Moslems.

In addition, it should not be forgotten that Nahdlatul Ulama
(NU) has always been a political force within our society. Even
though its current formal status is not a political party, no one
can deny the influence of NU as the biggest socio-religious
organization in shaping the political opinion and attitudes of a
large group of Moslems.

And if we look at the political dynamics within the various
associations of Islamic students we discover that new political
strains among them cannot possibly be accommodated by the present
PPP. They will have to build their own political house. PPP will
be able to lure them into its camp only if it can alter its image
as a "domesticated" political group.

In the democratic camp new forces have already emerged. The
Indonesian Democratic Union Party (PUDI) under Sri Bintang
Pamungkas and the People's Democratic Party (PRD) under Bambang
Sudjatmiko are such new forces. Whether they will be able to find
roots within society at large remains to be seen.

In addition there are other democratic forces around labor
leader Mochtar Pakpahan and among journalists who gathered -- and
are going to gather, I hope -- around the "illegal" Association
of Independent Journalists.

Basically the factor that makes the formation of new
democratic forces possible and desirable is the organizational
and managerial weakness of PDI. Since its inception this party
has been marked by continuous internal rivalries and infighting.

It has been known for quite a time that there are new groups
of political activists which are strongly inclined toward
democracy but somewhat hesitant to join PDI.

These groups have a common feeling that PDI -- and for them
PDI is Megawati -- is less than sufficiently intellectually
stimulating. These groups have also to build their own democratic
parties.

What I envisage for the immediate future is a more varied
political panorama. That is if the new law on political parties
is sufficiently free and liberal, and does not include
restrictive or repressive clauses.

According to Henry Adams "Modern politics is, at bottom, a
struggle not of men but of forces. The men become every year more
and more creatures of force, massed about central powerhouses."

The art of managing these forces, according to Adams, is to
ensure that these political powerhouses do not become
organizations that systematically exploit prejudices, dislikes,
and hatred. Genuine democracy can be built only on mutual trust
and consultation.

This is, I think, a maxim which future political leaders have
to keep in mind.

The writer is an observer of social and political affairs.