Revenge against Golkar does not solve problems

Calls to dissolve the Golkar Party hark back to the similar uproar in earlier days to ban the Indonesian Communist Party. Lecturer in politics at the University of Indonesia Valina Singka Subekti talked to The Jakarta Post on the issue.

Question: Many have demanded that Golkar be dissolved and rallies have led to the destruction and vandalism of Golkar offices. How do you see this development?

Answer: From a legal point of view, we have the 1999 law on political parties stipulating the establishment and the disbandment of parties ... There should also be evidence why a particular party should be disbanded -- whether it has violated the law.

However, we know that Golkar was the dominant party during Soeharto's 32-year New Order regime. Golkar was the bulwark of the New Order. So we can also understand the strong anti-Golkar movements after Soeharto was kicked out of office, as it was considered responsible for various distortions in politics and in the economy.

But the basic issue is the same, who is responsible for disbanding a political party? The institutional aspect of the matter must be understood if we want a good (political) system.

If Golkar is responsible for "distortions" how can it be acceptable if it is not banned?

We can learn from other nations experiencing transition, like South Africa under Nelson Mandela. Though his attempt was not totally optimal, Mandela adopted a national reconciliation to face the future; he established a synergy between the old and new powers in building the nation.

I think we can adopt such an approach ... combining the forces of the prevailing and preceding powers to build the nation.

The (South African) apartheid regime was far more cruel (than the New Order regime in Indonesia) but when he was at the helm, Mandela was able to convince his nation in how to face the future (despite) the past and the vengeance.

He even invited former authorities to work hand in hand. Because, when a nation experiences a significant political change, the new power is still unable to overcome various problems ... Therefore when becoming president, Mandela set a priority: national reconciliation.

We can't build our nation if we always talk about revenge. I see that this issue (revenge against Golkar) is promoted by certain parties to the younger generation.

Then dissolving Golkar is not the answer?

Yes. It will only create new problems. There will be even more people who are unsatisfied and want to carry out vengeance. We have to think about reconciliation.

But some don't care, they only want Golkar dissolved ...

It's interesting to notice that there is recently a "new" group in addition to the two groups, those pro and anti Gus Dur. The "new" group suddenly wants to dissolve Golkar.

I think this is an attempt to divert awareness from current political issues.

Can you identify who the additional group is?

Politics is a game; the group could be old or new players ...

Does our political culture support reconciliation?

Political culture is always changing. We can create a political culture depending on what we want. One characteristic is revenge; it has always been taught in schools. We surely have the potential to have a new political culture through our top leaders.

The process will be long, but if they never start, when will we have a new political culture? Just take the vandalism in Surabaya, East Java, and other areas. Vandalism was actually an excessive reaction to the report of the Special Committee (on Buloggate and Bruneigate) of the House of Representatives. This is a set-back. We could have accepted the memorandum as legally valid because it derived from a democratic institution.

Is political reform blocked by the political culture here?

There are structural and cultural aspects in reform.

When nothing happens to the cultural aspect, the structural aspect will be affected. The cultural aspect needs to progress. But when there are new institutions, new names, reform won't work if the culture remains unchanged.

(Now) there is no process for a change of culture. Whoever the leader is, the government has to provide a guarantee for the future. There is no mission and vision. I remember that someone jokingly said that the nation has something wrong genetically. (I. Christianto)