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.