Slow boat to democracy

When the House of Representatives endorsed the bill on general elections on Tuesday, public attention was not so much on substance, but more on the way our elected politicians completed their debate after marathons of late-night meetings. It also told us a lot about how far, or more aptly, how little, have we progressed in our march toward democracy and civil society.

Amid growing concerns that a further delay could jeopardize the general election that must take place in 2004, the political factions in the House resorted to settle their differences through voting rather than consensus.

The old New Order mentality of treating the use of voting as taboo remains strong among politicians. Deliberation to reach a consensus among the factions -- which literally means backroom dealing and horse-trading -- is still the preferred method. Voting is considered less desirable in their version of democracy, and was therefore used only as a last resort.

Given such an attitude, the politicians would probably settle the question of the next national leadership through consensus too, rather than through a general election, if they could help it. Had they gotten rid of their aversion to voting, our politicians in the House could probably have saved a lot of precious time in deliberating the bill on general elections, and all the other pending bills for that matter.

Time was indeed essential. The mandate given to the House of Representatives and President Megawati Soekarnoputri will end in October 2004. Indonesia must have elected a new government by then. And we must begin all the logistical preparations -- from voter registration, the establishment of regional election commissions, to the selection of candidates -- now, if we are to beat the 2004 deadline.

Missing the deadline could plunge Indonesia into uncertainty and even constitutional crisis. The House has already endorsed the bill on political parties, and President Megawati has duly signed it into law. Two more political bills are still in the pipeline: on the presidential election and on the composition of the House of Representatives and Regional Councils.

Completing deliberations on the bill on elections, therefore, was quite an accomplishment. But that is probably about the only complimentary thing we can say about our elected politicians.

In terms of the process and substance of the new legislation, they have fallen short once again.

The few public debates held over the bill on general elections were mostly lip service. The views of experts and of well-meaning groups like the Coalition for Electoral Reformation (Cetro), to try to improve the way the nation elected its leaders, went largely ignored. At the end of the day, the bill on general elections was more the outcome of political horse-trading between the major factions in the House.

This is clearly evident in the end product.

The legislation, as it was endorsed by the House on Tuesday, was designed chiefly to strengthen the position of the established large political parties -- the new status quo. They made sure that real political power rested in their hands, or rather their leaders'. Hence, the political parties will control selection and nomination of candidates, and the apportioning of seats to elected candidates.

About the only major progress in the bill is that voters in 2004 will cast their votes for both the party and candidates of their choice, instead of only the party, as in 1999. But given that party leaders have the right to recall their elected representatives, this concession is largely meaningless.

Real sovereignty lies not in the hands of the people, but in the hands of political parties.

The final version of the bill on general elections also makes it next to impossible for new and small political parties to contest the polls next year. Most of the more than 200 parties registered with the government today would not pass the test of the law on political parties, let alone the tougher requirements to contest the polls under the new law on general elections.

There is undoubtedly a strong case to simplify the number of parties contesting the elections. Certainly, 200 is too many. But there is also a strong case to allow as many parties as possible to emerge, and to give people real, rather than pseudo, choices, at the polls.

Indonesia is not ready yet for a two-party system of the kind found in most functioning democracies. Most of the parties in this country do not even behave like real parties. They are acting more as vehicles for individuals with power ambitions.

At this early stage of our nascent democracy, it is better to allow new parties to emerge and evolve into institutions that can truly help nurture and foster democracy in this country.

As disappointed as we may feel about the final version of the bill on general elections, we have no choice but to accept it, because we know that the alternative would be far worse.

Any improvement in the 2004 elections over 1999 will likely be marginal. But by now we must have learned, since the 1998 Reformasi, that you can't build democracy and civil society in one night. We will have to settle for an incremental improvement, hoping that 2004 will somehow produce a new breed of politicians who are more committed to the cause of democracy and civil society than the present pack.