The Golkar stigma

The Golkar stigma

What's in a name? A lot if that name happens to be Golkar. As
the ruling party during 32 years of the repressive New Order
regime of president Soeharto, Golkar is a stigma from a tragic
past in Indonesia's modern history.

You could alter the name to "Golkar Party of Reform", you
could change the entire leadership lineup, or you could claim to
have adopted the reform mantle, but to many people in this
country, the name Golkar will always conjure images of evil from
the past.

Is it any wonder that many people are still calling for the
dissolution of the party? The Supreme Court is currently hearing
a case whereby Golkar is being accused of violating campaign
funding limits during the 1999 elections. In the streets, there
have been demonstrations, some bordering on violence, calling for
the dissolution of Golkar because of its past misdeeds.

Some of these demonstrations may have ulterior motives, such
as to deflect criticism of President Abdurrahman Wahid, but the
demand that Golkar be dissolved is justifiable if one looks at
all of the harm the party inflicted on the people and the
country. As one of the three main pillars of the New Order,
Golkar, as a political institution, has never had to account for
the part it played in bringing the nation to near destruction.

President Soeharto and the Indonesian Military (TNI) have been
made to pay for their parts, at least more so than Golkar has.
The once powerful Soeharto has now been cut down to size, despite
emerging from legal prosecution unscathed. The TNI's overbearing
power has been diminished, its leadership revamped and a new
paradigm introduced to conform with the demands of a democratic
society.

What about Golkar? The Golkar Party of Reform, as it is now
officially called, has not only escaped legal retribution, it
managed to consolidate itself to emerge with the second largest
number of votes in the 1999 elections. Since then, Golkar has
been winning many elections for governors and regency chiefs. We
should not be surprised if Golkar emerges even stronger in the
2004 general election.

Granted, the playing field in 1999 was far from level, with
Golkar having the largest organizational networks of all
political parties, and in all likelihood the largest financial
backing. However, Golkar took second spot fair and square, and,
like it or not, its position as the second largest political
party in the House of Representatives must be respected.

As justifiable as it seems to demand that Golkar be dissolved,
the only democratic mechanism to put Golkar where it really
belongs is by defeating it in elections.

Sadly, those political parties that have been expected to lead
the reform movement in building a civil society have been
embroiled in seemingly endless internal power struggles and are
all too Java-centric or Jakarta-centric, thus allowing Golkar to
not only continue existing, but also to grow stronger by the day,
particularly in the regions.

President Abdurrahman would commit a grave error if he used
his executive powers to dissolve Golkar, as called for by many of
the anti-Golkar proponents. Given the strong support that Golkar
still enjoys today, particularly outside Java, such a move would
only divide the country even further and could possibly end in
bloodshed.

Abdurrahman would then be not so different from Soeharto, who
used, or rather abused, his power by dissolving the Indonesian
Communist Party (PKI), rounding up and killing millions of people
who were even remotely associated with the PKI. Indonesia has
still yet to fully come to terms with that tragic episode from
the 1960s. It is certainly not ready to deal with another tragedy
of those horrific proportions now.

How then do we get rid of this Golkar stigma? That is a
question which only the leaders of Golkar can and must answer.
Golkar may grow stronger and may even win the 2004 elections but
this stigma from the past will always haunt the party and its
leaders. With such a poor track record, it is difficult to
envisage Golkar playing an effective role in building a
democratic Indonesia now or in the future.

The Golkar of today is different from the Golkar of the 1970s,
the 1980s and the 1990s. The Golkar of today is led mostly be
activists of the Muslim Students Association (HMI), including its
chairman Akbar Tandjung. Different groups prevailed in the party
previously but, because of their shared name, the Golkar of today
is being asked to bear responsibility for all the misdeeds of
previous groups that dominated the organization.

Golkar could follow what the military did and make a clean
break with the past. It changed its name. Or rather, reverted
back from the Indonesian Armed Forces (ABRI) to the Indonesian
Military (TNI). Golkar would do itself and the nation a big favor
in getting rid of this stigma by finding a new name that has no
association with the past. After all, what's in a name?