RI political system needs changes

RI political system needs changes

By Hendrajit

JAKARTA (JP): A prominent expert on Indonesia, Dr. William
Liddle, once said that there will be a great vacuum and pervasive
uncertainty in the country if President Soeharto steps down from
power.

"The current political situation which has deprived the
Indonesian public of experience with democracy and managing
differences of opinions has led to this lack of preparation," he
said during a recent visit here.

Liddle's assessment is very understandable. Indonesian
politics is heavily concentrated in a few hands. The dominant
political institution is the bureaucracy. Other political
institutions, such as the House of Representatives, political
groups and independent interest groups are very weak and unable
to balance or check the power of the bureaucracy.

Accordingly, political competition is limited largely to
maneuvers within the bureaucratic elite itself and between rival
factions and personalities. In these circumstances, political
struggle is not really concerned with issues, policies and
ideologies. Rather, the ultimate goal is power and preserving the
system.

The authoritarian tendency of our current political system
dates back to the early days of the New Order administration in
the mid 1960s. The supporters of the new government believed that
economic development seems to require a maximum level of
political stability. In other words, political order and economic
development are seen as two sides of the same coin.

A central element of the thinking of men who came to power
after 1965 has been that popular politics is dangerous, that the
political energies of the masses which were released in 1945 and
played so large a role in the politics of the next 20 years, need
to be suppressed. From then on, the policy of the government can
be explained in one word: Depoliticization. It is a policy of
making politics taboo and of discouraging people from involvement
in any kind of politics. At the same time, the power center
reorganized and revamped its own party, Golkar, transforming it
into the country's most powerful party.

It is in this perspective that the five bills on political
development in 1985 should be understood. Law no. 1 on general
elections; Law no. 2 on the structure and position of the
People's Consultative Councils, the House of Representatives, and
the Provincial House of Representatives; Law no. 3 on political
parties and the functional group; Law no. 5 on referendums; and
Law no. 8 on societal organizations represent the final attempts
of the power center at restructuring the political system.

The five bills touched the very essence of the right to
organize, and therefore drew a great deal of attention and
concern.

With regard to the Law no. 3/1985, it is clear that no other
political groups, besides the Moslem-based United Development
Party (PPP), the Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI) and Golkar,
can be established. In practice, the PPP and PDI face more
problems, such as in organizing political gatherings. Regional
and national meetings of virtually all organizations, including
political groups, must have the government's permission.

On the other hand, the ruling Golkar has never had such
difficulties. The PPP and PDI have to separate themselves from
their constituents in the countryside as a consequence of the
floating mass policy. For the people, politics comes into their
lives only once every five years during the elections.

Golkar has no problem with its constituents because of its
nationwide network of every civil servant. In many regions, one
can find areas free of political groups.

The floating mass policy continues but Law no. 3/1985 remains
unchanged. It is therefore logical that the political groups will
weaken while Golkar becomes more powerful in Indonesia's non-
competitive one party system.

In the early years of the New Order, the political stability
reasoning is supported by a broad swath of society especially the
civilian bureaucrat, military and business community. In a
strictly controlled political system, businesspeople are able to
meet their business interests as long as they have an access to
bureaucracy. The urban middle class has opposed the anti-populist
movement since the late 1960s. But three decades later, the
challenges have changed. The new concerns are economic
competitiveness, wealth inequalities, human rights and political
pluralism.

Therefore, flogging national stability and national security
is no longer seen as the best approach. It means that we now need
to have a different outlook in understanding the relationship
between democracy and economic growth. Nowadays, democracy and
economic growth are no longer exclusive to one another. Economic
development cannot be considered successful if the achievements
of economic growth and equitable distribution come at the expense
of massive violations of human rights and democracy.

A different outlook is necessary because economic development
has created profound societal changes. A middle class of
professionals and white-collar employees are forming. The move
from a state-directed economic policy to a greater emphasis on
private sector led growth has given way to a self-confident urban
middle class, having more leverage and rising demand. The
activities of major NGOs, trade union and university students are
reflective of how important they are in influencing state
activities. In short, the transformation of Indonesia's economy
has in turn led to the growing pressures for change.

The problem is, while society and the economy are being
transformed, Indonesia's political system remains unchanged.
Therefore, it is only logical that the most substantial issue
facing Indonesia today is political change rather than
presidential succession.

It is widely known that the main agenda of democratization in
Indonesia is a process of opening up the political system and
making society a less submissive partner to the state. It is
timely for Indonesian people to call for a campaign to put people
on equal basis before the law, to have an objective rule of law
detached from the power of the state, to allow people to speak
openly, and finally to guarantee the lives of the minorities.

Others see democracy as basically a set of institutional
changes: a freely elected House, newspapers and courts which do
not bow to pressure from the government, checks and balances,
freedom of assembly, minority rights and so on. Democracy, in the
true sense, means the rule of the people in some organized way.
It suggests regular elections which is fair and just and a system
of government, in which the proceedings of the executive power
are subject to House control. It means that parliament should be
stronger and independent.

Democracy, in other words, stands for the solution of tensions
and contradictions within a society in peaceful means. Democracy
has something to do with government by the people, with
meaningful popular participation in the making of important
decisions. If that is so, Golkar and its rivals, PPP and PDI,
should really stand on the same level. If that happens, it would
show that representative democracy is not as dangerous to the
sociopolitical structure which has been established since 1965 as
the supporters of the status quo have suggested.

Currently, many middle class leaders believe that public
participation in politics is what the struggle for independence
was all about and it is enshrined in the 1945 Constitution. This
is exactly why it is timely for the nation to revise the Laws on
political development, especially Law no. 3/1985 on political
parties and Golkar and Law no. 8/1985 on societal organizations.
These laws have strengthened the power center but weakened
society and the political groups.

The writer is a freelance journalist and political observer
based in Jakarta.

Window: Therefore, it is only logical that the most substantial
issue facing Indonesia today is political change rather than
presidential succession.