The illusion of political supporters

The illusion of political supporters

Political analyst J. Soedjati Djiwandono shares his views on a
"new blend" of Indonesian politics.

JAKARTA (JP): Institution building should be an essential part
of the reform process. In this country, however, institution
building has proceeded mainly in name and form, and not quite in
spirit and substance.

We have an elected president. But President Abdurrahman Wahid
did not even contest the popular election. He was elected by
"representatives of the people", most of whom were not directly
elected by the people, the rest pretenders at their worst.

It is thus small wonder that Indonesian politicians have
little sense of accountability. They have little sense of the
prevailing aspirations of the people. Their "constituencies" are
no more than their own illusions.

It seems that they do not even have a clear idea of their
functions and responsibilities. And worst of all, they do not
seem to have respect for their own institutions.

A clear indication of the weakening of institution building in
this era of reform is the growing tendency toward extra-
legislative democracy, particularly in the form of street
demonstrations.

Now not only university students, but also people of different
walks of life, irrespective of age or gender, take to the streets
for a variety of causes.

Members of the legislature, and even the President himself,
have tended to rely more and more on mass support in the form of
rallies and public statements by various groups of people, than
on democratic process and mechanism.

Certainly, ordinary people cannot possibly take a direct part
in a legislative debate or in any other formal part of democratic
processes in state institutions. The best, not necessarily the
most effective alternative, is to make public statements or to
stage demonstrations.

No one knows for sure if such mass movements are orchestrated
by politicians, apart from suspicions expressed in public of
"provocation" by political elite backed by "money politics".

And surely, with millions unemployed since the onset of the
monetary crisis, one cannot underestimate the significance of
money politics. For many, to get paid for taking part in a
demonstration, no matter what for or against, is an easy way to
earn a living, at least temporarily.

It is ironical to note, however, that politicians are getting
increasingly interested in making use of rallies, whether or not
such extra-legislative activities are their own making.

One case in point was the apparent political exploitation of
such demonstrations in support of the special committee of the
House of Representatives (DPR) on the Brunei and Bulog scandals.

Even more ironical is the fact that many politicians now seem
increasingly inclined to resort to what should rightly belong to
extra-legislative or mass politics. Thus in order to support
their demand to speed up the process toward a special session of
the People's Consultative Assembly aimed at impeaching the
President in the wake of DPR's memorandum to him, one House
deputy speaker started to collect signatures.

Having obtained over 100 signatures from legislators, however,
for one reason or another, the effort was abandoned.

Another case was the public statement issued by six factions
of the House to support the Golkar Party in the face of public
demands for the dissolution of the party, considered the main
pillar of the New Order regime under Soeharto. It is doubtful,
however, if such a course of action would in any way affect
public hostility toward Golkar.

Most disconcerting is the fact that even the President himself
seems to have supported, if implicitly, or even resorted to such
use of extra-legislative politics.

Reacting to the House memorandum, he claimed that he still
enjoyed the people's support, probably having in mind the rowdy
expressions of support for him by his loyal supporters in days of
demonstrations.

He considered dissolving the House, challenging that the
mandate of the people did not necessarily come through the
mechanism of the legislature.

That is a new phenomenon that characterizes Indonesian
politics today. It is a mixture of elite and mass politics, of
legislative and extra-legislative politics. It is a special blend
of Indonesian politics, a blend of sorts.

Not like delicious blended tea, coffee, whisky or tobacco, it
stinks.

What are we in for? A revolution, in a country not likely to
be a fertile ground for a successful one? A national
reconciliation, Indonesian style?

Are we, particularly the top leadership of this country, dead
serious about it? Do we really deserve to be a nation, free and
independent, and to survive?