Should the winning party lead the government?

Should the winning party lead the government?

By Aleksius Jemadu

BANDUNG (JP): As the vote count by the General Elections
Commission (KPU) approaches its end and victory for the
Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan)) becomes
a certainty, speculation about the presidential election has
become the hot topic.

It is very likely that PDI Perjuangan will not be able to
obtain an outright majority of seats in the House of
Representatives (DPR). Thus, the nomination of its chairwoman,
Megawati Soekarnoputri, as the next president faces huge
challenges.

For PDI Perjuangan to form a coalition with other reform-
oriented parties, such as the National Awakening Party (PKB) and
the National Mandate Party (PAN), is a situation replete with
difficulties. If the principle of "one man one vote" is applied,
there is no guarantee that all legislators from the two parties,
especially those from the far right i.e. (Islamic) groups, will
accept a female president.

At the same time, PDI Perjuangan must convince the 200
appointed members of the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR)
that Megawati is an acceptable candidate. This move will be
necessary in order for the party to obtain a simple majority of
351 votes (half of the total 700 MPR members plus one vote). As
yet, no explicit statement has been forthcoming from the
Indonesian Military (TNI) that its 38 DPR members will support
Megawati's presidential nomination.

The biggest challenge for PDI Perjuangan will come from the
dominant Golkar. The party's presidential candidate, incumbent
President B.J. Habibie stands a good chance of being elected to
the post. Support would come from a substantial Golkar presence
in the legislative body, a possible coalition with the United
Development Party (PPP) and other Islamic parties, as well as
support from the appointed members of MPR. If TNI decides to give
their support to a Habibie/Wiranto combination for president and
vice president, then Megawati's road to the presidency will
become ever more precarious.

Some analysts argue that it is not problematic if the next
president does not come from the winning party in the elections.
They claim that the aim of the general election was to appoint a
new DPR, not to elect a president. Can we accept such an
argument? What is then the relationship between the general
election and the establishment of a popularly supported
government? What about the legitimacy of a president, whose
political party is not supported by the majority of the
electorate? Is she/he a legitimate leader? If yes, what is the
basis of her/his popular legitimacy?

As far as problems of popular legitimacy are concerned, there
are some fundamental reasons why the winning party in the general
election should be given the first priority to establish and lead
the new government.

First, one of the criteria of a democratic government is a
congruence between the popular will of the people and the
function of the legislative bodies. During the New Order
political regime such congruence was systematically destroyed
through different forms of political manipulation, including the
subjective appointment of MPR members.

In this regard, the MPR was intentionally used (or misused) to
accomplish the ambitions of the incumbent Soeharto. Can we repeat
the same political manipulations in this new era, after we have
all condemned the Soehartoist paradigm in politics?

The second reason is concerned with the problem of legitimacy.
When we seek to assess the legitimacy of the government's
political authority, what we are actually doing is "assessing how
far it conforms to people's moral values or standards, how far it
satisfies the normative expectations they have of it." (David
Beetham, 1996)

The outcome of the general election -- victory for PDI
Perjuangan -- is a clear indication of the people's desire for a
totally new government, with a clear-cut separation from the old
ruling body. This was precisely the reason why the June 7 general
election was so urgent and crucial. If the MPR fails to satisfy
such needs, we will only prolong the uncertainty within
Indonesian politics, with all its attendant negative consequences
for the economy.

Third, in electing a president and forming a new government,
Indonesia must not neglect the aspirations of the international
market. So far, that market has had a very positive reaction to
the general election results. This might be related to the market
player's perception that with the defeat of the Golkar Party and
the leading position of the reform-oriented PDI Perjuangan, there
will be a greater chance for a more accountable and transparent
government.

The market psychology offers a substantial momentum for
Indonesia to extricate itself from the current economic crisis.
If the next MPR General Session fails to take into account such
market perceptions, there is a fear that we will lose the
momentum for a comprehensive economic recovery.

Last but not least, I agree with Jusuf Wanandi that it is now
time for Golkar to be an opposition party (The Jakarta Post, June
25, 1999). Indonesia needs not only a strong opposition force,
but also an intelligent one in the legislative bodies. Given its
long experience in politics, the Golkar Party is in the best
position to take on such an important role.

The Golkar Party would then receive the people's mandate to
see if the ruling political parties (PDI Perjuangan and its
coalition partners) were consistent with their campaign promises.
There is no reason why such a task should be considered less
noble and patriotic than being a governing party.

The writer is a lecturer in the Department of International
Relations at the Catholic University of Parahyangan, Bandung.