The political price of the PDI dispute

The prolonged leadership rivalry in the Indonesian Democratic Party was evident when it held its 24th anniversary celebrations on Jan. 10 in two places: Jakarta by the ousted chief Megawati Soekarnoputri and in the Central Sulawesi town of Poso by the government-recognized leader Soerjadi. Political observer Riswandha Imawan takes a close look at the event.

YOGYAKARTA (JP): Apprehension was thick in the air at the recent anniversary commemorations of the Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI). It was not only due to the prolonged conflict plaguing the party but also due to its possible malignant effect on the survival of the prevailing political mechanism.

Amid protests from PDI members, the two figures assumed different stances. Megawati Soekarnoputri stayed home, while Soerjadi went to the Central Sulawesi town of Poso for the party's anniversary celebration. This reinforced what the people are thinking. Soerjadi has returned to the helm of the party as a result of political engineering by an external force.

First, Poso is an area strongly in support of the ruling Golkar. It is surprising that the anniversary was not held in a strong PDI area like East Java or Central Java. Nevertheless, everyone knows that if Soerjadi held the celebrations in a PDI stronghold area, there was a great likelihood of disturbances. Soerjadi needed a "political umbrella" to show that he had succeeded in pacifying his conflicting party members. This could be achieved in a region where PDI is a minority.

The presence of the Minister of Home Affairs and the Armed Forces Commander in Poso, bolstered the "political umbrella" theory. It is now obvious that Soerjadi has the endorsement of the political elite, something that Megawati has been deprived of.

Megawati, on the other hand, feels that she has been chosen by grassroot supporters. Therefore, she let the masses organize themselves in commemorating PDI's anniversary. Even without media coverage she has been successful in instilling a sense of belonging to the party.

It is now clear that Megawati has won the hearts of PDI members. If this is related to the basic principles of politics in Indonesia: balance and accommodation, Megawati is a part of the political mechanism. Ostracizing Megawati is actually a violation against this principle. This move may be effective in the short-term by safeguarding and maximizing the interests of a certain political elite group, but in the long term it can be very dangerous to the continuity of the Indonesian political system as it undermines the rationality at the basis of the political system.

If we believe in the most basic principle of democracy, vox populi vox rei, it follows that Soerjadi should concede defeat to Megawati. But that is difficult to accomplish, especially now when the attitude of the elite is so transparent, an attitude that is actually not in line with the concept of our bureaucracy.

So what should we do? The PDI conflict has been very transparent already and is undermining the authority of our political elite. In our political culture, the elite is never wrong although facts and logic suggest otherwise.

This situation has given rise to a double standard value. If the elite is wrong, it is their "intention" which is taken into consideration. If fault is found with the people, it is the people's "action" that will be tried. We seem to ignore the fact that it is very hard to prove the validity of an intention and how susceptible it is to manipulation.

In 1996, a group of pro-Megawati PDI members were jailed in a protest for the forceful takeover of the party headquarters. Their intention to fight for democracy was ignored. The authorities said that they had created public disorder and coverage of the issue was considered a free campaign for PDI, which is a strange proposition.

What about the premature Golkar campaigns, the establishment of a student umbrella organization? No problem, the government said, as their intention was not to hold a campaign.

This kind of double standard means a solution to the problem is difficult to reach. The alleged case of a Rp1 billion bribe to win the post of regent in Bantul, near Yogyakarta, was a case in point. Based on rationality this act was indefensible and the candidate's integrity was questionable.

Furthermore, the act has tarnished the image of modern bureaucracy and ruined the image of the implementation of the 'dual function' of the Armed Forces. The problem is, to punish the Bantul regent will possibility ruin the authority of other elites who support him.

The case of Soerjadi is similar. Maybe deep in his heart Soerjadi realizes that he owes his present position to other elites. And maybe he is also aware that he could be thrown out at anytime if his interests are not achieved. The statement made by Home Affairs Ministry spokesman H.S.A. Yusaac on Jan. 8 in Yogyakarta is foreboding for Soerjadi. Yusaac said: "Megawati should nurture patience until 1998."

Apparently, 1998 has been set as a deadline for settlement of the PDI conflict. This year the government is calculating the political price it has to pay for it.

If Megawati is to win, it will appease the grassroot supporters. But it may trigger a bigger political clout in the elite circles. Otherwise, bigger social upheavals may occur.

I think that whoever has a stake in the PDI dispute should realize that the nation may have to pay a bigger political price than expected.

The writer is a lecturer in political sciences at the Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta