RI needs new political party

By Vedi R. Hadiz

JAKARTA (JP): The present crisis of confidence in the government stems from the fact that the vast majority of the population feels their aspirations and interests are not being represented in the existing political system.

Although there are three political parties (for convenience sake, let's not provide Golkar a special status) none seems to be equipped to deal with the challenges of the times.

A new political party is needed, one which is not tainted with the reputation of being either the instrument of those currently in power, or an accomplice of a system in which it has been content to play the role of nothing more than an ornament.

The lack of faith in the now existing political parties is nothing to puzzle about. Golkar is widely seen as representing the status quo, and therefore, at least, partly responsible for the mess which Indonesia is now in.

For many who have been increasingly vocal and outspoken about the need for political reform, Golkar is part of the problem rather than part of a solution.

It would require a lot of internal change within Golkar to alter its image from that of a party representing the interests of bureaucrats and politically connected businesses, and distant from the people, except once every five years during elections.

The United Development Party (PPP) and the Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI) have both had their chances to be the channel through which the voice of the powerless can be heard. But they have both botched their opportunities.

The PPP, potentially not just a party with which devout Moslems can identify with, has failed to take the lead in this moment of crisis, most likely because it has for too long been used to playing the role of ornament.

We did see moments of courage from the party over the past year (during the Mega-Bintang alliance of the elections of 1997 and during the March People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) session) but we have not seen the kind of dynamic leadership that can inspire and galvanize large sections of society, or to be a genuine voice for reform.

The PDI is in a sorry state. Ever since the current leadership's crude toppling of the popular Megawati Soekarnoputri, the party has lost any mass support it ever commanded, as well as any kind of legitimacy as a channel through which people can voice their aspirations.

We must also remember that both the PPP and the PDI are artificial products of the result of behind-the-scenes political engineering in the early 1970s which began the tradition of periodic government intervention into their internal affairs.

We must also remember that they have operated within a political system that is heavily stacked against them with the policy of floating mass politics and civil servant "monoloyalty" geared to overwhelmingly favor Golkar and leave them as mere appendages.

Of course, the establishment of a new political party cannot take place, legally, without the overhaul of existing laws on political parties. Its effectiveness would also be contingent on the eradication of practices which have so favored Golkar.

But its formation will not only provide an alternative to the masses of people turned off by the existing three parties, but will also provide an incentive for Golkar, the PDI and PPP to get their act together and start behaving like real political parties, with deep roots in society.

Such a new party, if endowed with capable leadership taken from the current crop of government critics, and if able to unite the disparate prereform forces, can prove a formidable competitor.

In the past, talk about the establishment of new parties has been dispelled by pointing to a so-called "national consensus" which resulted in the current political system, and by invoking fears about the fragmenting effects of having too many parties.

Thus, those involved in early experiments like Sri Bintang Pamungkas' Indonesian Democracy Union Party (PUDI) found themselves the target of repression. The national consensus excuse is clearly no longer relevant and cannot be taken seriously at all.

Just witness the clear voices for political reform, no longer confined to small groups of intellectuals or activists, but emanating from the poorest of the poor to the very fringes of the elites themselves.

The "fragmentation" excuse can be easily countered as well. For example, an election system can be devised, as part of the process of political reform, in which only parties that have, say, 10 percent, of the popular vote could be represented in parliament.

With this sort of scheme, it is even conceivable to have more than one new political party established, without the fear of producing an unviable parliament.

But, again, a new political party is only truly useful in the context of wide-ranging reforms in the current political system. For example, such a party would have little effect in the process of electing a future president, if the current practice of appointing members of the MPR in such large numbers were maintained.

It would also have little effect without reforms which are geared to strengthen parliament vis-a-vis the presidency.

Indonesia is now at a crossroads. The choice is to reform or to perish. If it is to reform, then allowing for the possibility of establishing political parties in addition to those that already exist should be considered.

A new political party would provide some life to the dull business-as-usual type of politics that we were so accustomed to prior to the recent outbreak of mass unrest.

More importantly, a new political party could provide a genuine alternative, a genuine vehicle for those whose aspirations Golkar, the PDI and the PPP have been incapable of channeling.

Today, their increasingly loud voices can be heard in the streets, not in parliament or any other institution of the state.

The writer is a research fellow of the Asia Research Center, Murdoch University, Australia.