Tight rules reduce campaign to slogans

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)