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.