Redefining the role of political parties

Street demonstrations have revived discussions on the roles and concepts of political parties. Political scientist Arbi Sanit explores this phenomena and its relevance to Indonesia.

JAKARTA (JP); The differences between cadre political parties and popularly supported political parties have become a topic of public discussion in light of recent street demonstrations over the Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI) fiasco.

Rumor has it that Megawati Soekarnoputri, the recently deposed leader of the rift-ridden party, intends to turn the PDI into a party of the masses.

The question is not which of the two party types is more appropriate but whether it is relevant to make such a distinction in democratic Indonesia.

Duverger, who founded the concept of both political party types, based his analysis upon parties' recruitment systems, which he defined as either political or financial.

Recruitment with a political approach is done through socialization or political instruction to the masses and so is its selection of leaders.

Recruitment with a financial approach is done through donations from a party's elite and from companies belonging to the party.

Cadre parties recruit elite members to control government and develop their financial resources through the capitalist system.

People's parties stress political education for the public while relying on their members to fund party activities.

In terms of ideology, cadre parties are right wing and people's parties are left wing. Members of cadre parties are middle class and members of people's parties are working class or poor.

In terms of organization, cadre parties have a caucus with great autonomy but loosely controlled party units. People's parties, on the other hand, have a central committee which tightly control their branches resulting in stronger party units.

Cadre parties do not recognize units to manage its members or its problems. People's parties establish units to deal with members' registration, fees, cards, contributions, recruitment, cadre training and party discipline.

Unlike cadre parties, people's parties require efficient management of their organizational units. Such management also means categorizing members from sympathizers to party leaders. Cadre parties only recognize a limited and exclusive leadership.

The so-called "floating mass" policy derived from cadre parties, which were conceived by the New Order, has a number of weaknesses.

Although the floating mass policy does not recognize organizational units, party decisions are made at conventions similar to the United States' party system.

Cadre parties are elitist and oligarchic often preventing decision makers from controlling its public.

Cadre parties tend to ignore people's needs, and the Indonesian public is in dire need of political consciousness, which comes through political education.

Both cadre and people's parties in Indonesia have led to anarchy or oligarchy, which propels a powerful party elite. The parties' mechanisms revolve around personal relationships and cliques which cripple parties.

In terms of sociology and finance, both people's and cadre parties are unfit for this society today. The reason is that the elite do not hear or respond to people's demands. Furthermore, parties are not allowed to own companies.

The reality of today's New Order politics is that all political organizations have covertly implemented people's parties concepts by maintaining permanent support groups. And Golkar is leading this game.

The writer is a lecturer of political science at the University of Indonesia.