So much for reform talks

So much for reform talks

The nation's reform agenda appears to have been put on the
back burner as virtually all of the country's political elite are
locked in a stiff power struggle. The whole nation watches in awe
as these political leaders, many of whom we had assumed were on
opposing sides of the reform divide, meet and negotiate to forge
coalitions or strategic alliances, all with their sights trained
on the November presidential election.

The reform agenda -- the very reason the entire election
process was held this year instead of in 2002 -- is rarely
mentioned while these leaders engage in horse trading to build
their strength. The agenda turned out to be nothing but a
campaign platform, or a sales gimmick, to win gullible voters.

Although the presidential election is looking more and more
like a two-horse race between incumbent B.J. Habibie of the
Golkar Party and Megawati Soekarnoputri of the Indonesian
Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan), other figures are
promoting themselves as alternative candidates. It is clear that
neither Habibie nor Megawati are willing to back down. Megawati
feels the presidency is rightfully hers now that it looks like
her party will emerge the winner in Indonesia's first real
democratic election in decades. Habibie, whose Golkar is set to
come second, feels he still has a chance thanks to an election
procedure that affords the incumbent the luxury of appointing
some of the 700 members of the People's Consultative Assembly
(MPR).

The nation appears to be heading toward a very close, and
probably bitter, battle for the presidency between Habibie and
Megawati. So close are their positions that the issue will likely
be left to the few small political factions to determine who the
winner will be. The Armed Forces has 38 unelected
representatives. The National Awakening Party (PKB), the United
Development Party (PPP) and the National Mandate Party (PAN) will
have significant representatives to be able to influence the
outcome of the race. Leaders of these factions, having lost the
general election, are more than eager to play the role of
king/queen-makers, and will try to get something out of this for
themselves.

This is when the uglier side of politics rears its head. Many
of these political leaders appear to have abandoned their
principles and are going back on their preelection words that
they would never coalesce with the status quo forces, which
everyone agreed refer to Habibie and Golkar. Time will tell how
far they are willing to compromise their principles, and in the
case of the military, its promise of neutrality, if and when the
issue is to be settled by a vote at the MPR.

With the presidential race so close, one can almost discard
the much-abused Indonesian political system of consensus building
which in the past gave seven successive presidential election
victories to Soeharto. A vote is not only almost certain, but it
is also imperative in a democracy.

There is already a broad agreement among the major political
factions to allow one vote for each of the 700 MPR members in
electing a president. There are still disagreements on whether
they should vote openly, or through a secret ballot.

An open vote would be in keeping with the spirit of democracy
as it would allow the public a glimpse of how their
representatives cast their ballots. But so what if the public
knows? Most, if not all, the elected representatives in the MPR
will still owe their allegiance more to party leaders who
assigned them the seats, than to their designated constituency.

Party leaders still wield so much power over the
representatives, and can replace them without even consulting the
designated constituency. An MPR representative, whether
representing a political party or the military faction, would
most likely feel intimidated into following the party line when
casting a vote in an open system. It is unlikely members will
vote with a full conscience.

This crucial matter of choosing between transparency and an
honest vote -- only in Indonesia can these two elements be in
conflict -- will undoubtedly generate more discourse and more
lively political talk shows in the coming days and weeks. This
matter, together with ongoing haggling among the political elite,
will keep us perplexed if not amused, and help draw our attention
even further away from the reform agenda and from the crisis that
is still engulfing the nation.