Redefining the role of political parties

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.