Tight rules reduce campaign to slogans

The banning of banners and posters showing an alliance between supporters of the ousted Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI) leader Megawati Soekarnoputri and the United Development Party (PPP) has drawn criticism. Political scientist Syamsuddin Haris from the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI) shares his views with The Jakarta Post.

Question: What do you think of the government move? Do these banners and posters violate campaign rules?

Answer: I think it's not clear enough what rules the government is referring to. I see it as a sign of panic because the government doesn't know who to blame. So it points the finger at a poll contestant (PPP) like it was responsible.

Q: Can you explain why?

A: In Indonesia, poll contestants cannot be asked to take responsibility, because they don't have members. The floating mass policy has prevented them from being made responsible. How can a political party be asked to be responsible for something committed by the masses who are not members of the party?

I agree with what Buya (nickname of PPP chief Ismail Hasan Metareum) has said, that banners are people's own initiative. Therefore, blame cannot be put on PPP's shoulders.

Q: Does it mean that the floating mass policy, tenaciously held by the government so far, has finally put it at a disadvantage?

A: The policy was at first applied to individual people in politics, based on past unpleasant experiences. In practice, it has turned out to be a depoliticizing process. It's not politics that people are separated from, but nongovernment political parties in order to lure them to Golkar.

The policy is benefits the government, as the patron of the ruling party, because it can control the vote of the people.

This shouldn't be done forever. The policy has to be reevaluated. This should have been done a long time ago. Political parties must be allowed to mobilize members. Experience has shown that without mass support, the government-backed PDI faction has had a difficult time surviving.

There is always a point in time, as is evident from the Megawati supporters' phenomenon, when voters need leaders who are able to win their hearts, and not leaders who receive the government's blessing.

Q: Could you elaborate on the advantages and the disadvantages of the floating mass policy?

A: The policy is indeed advantageous for it makes economic development more effective. Why? Because people, especially from a grassroots level, shy away from talking about politics. That way, they can focus on economic development.

Yet, it has its downside. It makes people politically gullible. It can even make some politically blind. This explains why people are easily mobilized by the elite (to vote for them).

Had the policy not been misused, it could have brought a positive political effect as well because it gives people freedom to choose any party which best suits their aspirations.

Q: Do you have any suggestions to deal with the problem?

A: The floating mass policy has to be reevaluated and eventually revoked. Presently, people's participation in politics is only a few minutes-long every five years, when they cast their votes in polling booths. The rest of the time, they are overpowered by repression. They need more time and space to express their political aspirations.

That explains why the four-week campaign period has been fully exploited to do so. It's understandable why people violate the rule banning vehicle convoys. It's a once-in-a-five-year moment for them.

The fact that those trying to express their political aspirations outside the campaign period are being arrested, accused of obstructing the government's program or banned from giving political lectures, has made people feel even more oppressed.

Q: What do you think about the contents of campaign speeches so far?

A: What the three parties have been doing so far is basically offering slogans -- not programs as they are supposed to do. It's because campaign rules ban them from criticizing government policies. In such a situation, there is nothing they can do except offer slogans.

There is actually nothing new with what the three parties are offering. The five-year State Policy Guidelines (GBHN) have expressed it even more beautifully. Economic monopolies, collusion, corruption, capitalism, autonomous political parties, clean government, justice, and the like are all there.

Nevertheless, these are not what the parties should deal with, because they refer to matters at a legislative level. The parties' field of work should be concentrated below that level, that is, at a policy level. What can political parties do when they are not allowed to criticize or evaluate government policy?

Therefore it is campaign rules that make it impossible for political parties to present programs instead of slogans for their campaigns. (swa)