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.