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.