Voters teach bad parties good lesson

Frans H. Winarta, Member of the Advisory Board, IBA Human Rights Institute, Jakarta

Although the ballot count is not yet completed, it seems clear that the 2004 legislative election will not produce a majority party that has gained the overwhelming support of the nation's 147 million voters. The first round of the presidential election in July is not likely to be much different.

Unlike the political systems of most Western countries, where two major parties compete with one another as the ruling and opposition parties, Indonesia has a multi-party system. The consequence of such a system is that, in order to establish a strong government, coalitions of parties with similar political platforms need to be formed with the support of the legislature.

After the fall of the Soeharto regime, the nation has often felt the need for strong government, but the multi-party system does not allow for a single party to dominate the polls. The only viable alternative to producing a strong and effective government is form a coalition party.

Since the first election in 1955, it has been a part of the Indonesian political culture that parties can usually be categorized as nationalist, religious or socialist. Observing the preliminary results of this year's election, it can be said that parties with a nationalist orientation have the potential to form a workable coalition. Religion-oriented parties are not able to attract sufficient support, as religion is considered a past issue in Indonesian politics and not immediately relevant to current development needs.

The results of the legislative election indicate that the public is becoming increasingly secular in their political outlook. Religious issues are considered as being not sufficiently relevant to the country's current political and economic imperatives. Religion in politics tends to be emotional and can lead to conflict at both the national level -- as dramatically illustrated in Maluku and Poso -- and in international affairs, as in the al-Qaeda threat.

Affairs of state are quite separate from religion and the people are bored with the promises made by unscrupulous politicians who claim piety. Last month's Malaysian elections illustrated that voters will not easily buy into religion as a political commodity.

Rather, the issues of combating corruption, good governance, modernization, stability, economic growth, rule of law and law enforcement are those that grab the attention of voters. The success of the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) could well be attributed to its anticorruption message rather than its Islamist policies.

What is exciting and promising about the 2004 elections is that voters are prepared to punish those parties that broke their promises in 1999 and are looking to new parties -- parties that they hope will be able to bring about change and a breath of fresh air into the Indonesian political arena.

Of course, it is still too early to expect too much from these new parties, as they have yet to be tested, do not have extensive organization and experience, and may yet turn out to be just as neglectful of their promises as veteran parties. It will be interesting to see how faithful the politicians will be to their promises this time around.

During the campaign, political parties appeared highly unskilled in communicating workable and meaningful programs. Instead, they resorted to manipulating the emotions of their constituents with empty promises, musical performances, soap stars and sexy dangdut dancers.

In addition, money politics again reared its ugly head. In the midst of demands for the eradication of corruption and the creation of a clean, efficient government, parties promised a new paradigm, but instead delivered the same old products, the same moves and same lies dressed up in new packaging. Some parties even offered voters a second chance to become Soeharto loyalists, an offer that is illogical and insulting to the people's intelligence.

As mentioned, the people are becoming increasingly rational in choosing parties and leaders as reflected in their newfound courage and willingness to dump those parties that have disappointed them and looking for something better.

This fresh, swinging voter trend in the democratization process will have a positive impact on democratic life, as future political leaders will not be able to get away so easily with breaking promises and playing on the people's sentiments without being punished in the next election.

It is to be hoped that in elections to come, real competition on the political stage will emerge between prospective leaders who truly aspire to meet voter demands and fight for the future of the Indonesian people.

Returning to the formation of a strong coalition government, this can be achieved realistically through an alliance of political parties with a nationalist ideology representing all groups in society. A government that is rational, honest, efficient, committed to technological advancement, respectful of human rights and the rule of law will be the one that offers the brightest prospects for fulfilling the people's demands for peace, security, justice and prosperity.

It must govern according to meritocracy and invite all components of the nation to join hands -- that is, no discrimination or special treatment for certain classes. To achieve these goals, a cabinet comprised of ministers who truly understand the demands of their constituents -- not those who are just learning on the job -- is necessary.

We need ministers who work for the interests of the nation and not for the interests of their own party. We do not need ministers who only speak for themselves and are neglectful in what they communicate to the President. Ministers must enter the cabinet to truly assist the President or else join the opposition in offering constructive criticism.

Let us hope that the 2004 elections will pave the way for a better tomorrow in which the people of Indonesia uphold the principle of unity in diversity and diversity within a united purpose.