Revenge against Golkar does not solve problems

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)