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?