Regional parties would reflect political pluralism

Regional parties would reflect political pluralism

Endy M. Bayuni, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

Whatever transpires in the peace talks between the government and
the separatist Aceh Free Movement (GAM) in Helsinki this weekend,
Indonesia has to review its stance on whether or not to allow
political parties in the regions. The exclusion of such parties
from our electoral system undermines our claim to political
pluralism.

The current laws on political parties and general elections
state that political parties must be headquartered in Jakarta and
that they have to have representations in at least half of all 33
provinces. In other words, political parties must be national-
based. Region-based parties are not permitted to contest
elections.

Government officials have rejected GAM's demand that regional
parties be allowed in Aceh on the grounds that current laws
simply don't permit them. They also argue that if an exception
was to be made for Aceh, other regions would soon be demanding
the same rights. Some have even argued that allowing regional
political parties would be a sure recipe for the breakup of
Indonesia as a unitary state.

There is probably only one argument in support of regional
parties, but it is a very compelling one: Indonesia's political
pluralism.

This pluralism is already reflected in the plethora of
political parties flying different colors. You name it, Indonesia
has it. Well, almost.

We have parties of all kinds of ideological lines, like
parties professing various shades of nationalism, as well as
parties based on religion (Islam, Christian, Hindu), race
(Chinese parties) and class (labor parties).

Everything goes in Indonesian politics. And that's how it
should be in any pluralist democracy.

Although at the end of the day, it was the major established
parties that won the most seats in the elections, we should not
prevent anyone from forming any association (which is
constitutionally guaranteed), including forming political parties
on whatever platform they choose. In 2004, there were more than
200 registered political parties; 24 contested the elections, and
of these about 10 won representation in the House of
Representatives.

Being a nascent democracy, Indonesia must allow political
pluralism to reflect the pluralistic society that it is.

But we are not quite there yet.

The 1945 Constitution only bans political parties based on
Communism or Marxism, but even this ban has become obsolete for
all practical purposes given the declining popularity of this
ideology worldwide. And although there is no specific ban against
the establishment of region-based political parties, electoral
laws effectively preclude them from the system.

While lifting the ban on Communism/Marxism is probably just a
matter of time, there is a strong case for allowing the
establishment of regional political parties right now. And it is
not simply to accommodate the demands of GAM in Aceh, but also in
the name of democracy in a politically pluralist Indonesia.

Indonesia renews its laws on political parties and general
elections every five years to accommodate changing situations.
The next time the House revises the law, ahead of the 2009 polls,
allowing regional parties will have to be one of the priorities
for change.

One would suspect however that the decision to preclude
regional parties, whether in Aceh or in other provinces, is not
based so much on fears of promoting divisions in the country, or
even fears of leading to the breakup of Indonesia. Both are hyped
for a more deep-seated fear: the loss of their own power.

All elections are by definition divisive. The presence of
regional parties, assuming that they gain some popularity, would
not be more threatening or divisive than parties campaigning on
the platform of religion, ideology or race. India, an equally
pluralist society, is dominated by regional parties that forge
coalitions to form governments. Nobody in India talks about the
disintegration of the country.

The preclusion of regional parties reflects more the obsession
of the national-based parties, whose representatives draw up the
laws on political parties and general elections, to retain as
much control and power as possible in their hands. The last thing
they want is to devolve their power to the provinces.

This is clearly reflected in the way they handpicked
candidates to run for offices in the provinces, in the 2004
general elections as well as in this year's local elections for
governors, mayors and regency chiefs.

Of all the political institutions in Indonesia, political
parties are the least democratically run, with power still
accumulated in the hands of a chairperson. This is an irony given
that political parties are supposed to be an important part of
any democratic political system.

The central government has already devolved much of its power
by promoting decentralization and direct local elections. We have
not seen a similar decentralization, however, among the major
political parties. If anything, the trend is the other way.

The lack of democracy in the political parties is likely to be
the main reason why their leaders have no confidence that they
can compete with region-based political parties. Regional
interests and aspirations are hardly represented by the major and
established political parties. Not surprisingly, these parties,
more so than the government, are the ones most opposed to the
idea of allowing the establishment of regional political parties.

Allowing regional political parties to contest elections would
have the benefit of forcing the Jakarta-based parties to start
democratizing their own house, and to start representing the
interests of the people, wherever they are. If they cannot do it,
then they should concede defeat to the regional parties.

If our politicians cannot represent the people of Aceh and
meet their aspirations, then we don't deserve Aceh. And neither
does Aceh deserve our politicians.

The writer is chief editor of The Jakarta Post.