`We need political change, not just political survival'

`We need political change, not just political survival'

Ignas Kleden, Sociologist, The Center for East Indonesian Affairs
(CEIA), Jakarta

"My loyalty to my country ends where my loyalty to my party
begins." This paraphrase of an old political saying seems to hold
true for us today. Party politicians do not ask what their party
might contribute to the country. They ask instead what enables
the survival of their respective parties and how the country and
the public should be molded to fit that goal.

The debate about the new elections law is a good case in
point. The larger political parties, such as the Indonesian
Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan) and Golkar (the
former ruling party), have not bothered much about important
points relating to the electoral system.

Should voters choose a political party or an individual
candidate? Clearly, voters are better off voting for the
individuals they know, taking into account their skill and
integrity, and commitment to democratic principles.

Voting for a party would imply that the people would delegate
their right to elect their party and that they would simply have
to accept the persons appointed by the party.

Thus, the more direct the election, the greater the
possibility that voters can decide the future of politics.
Conversely, the more indirect the election, the greater the power
and influence the party politicians would have to give shape to
the future of national politics.

People wondered why Golkar, as a larger party, did not approve
a direct election, saying instead it agreed with the "open
proportional system" of election.

A clause was added in the law to say that in the event a voter
only perforated the symbol of a party without perforating the
name of a candidate, his vote would be treated as valid and
countable. In contrast, if a voter happened to perforate only the
name of a candidate without that of a party symbol, his vote
would be invalid. Media reports showed that this might be a sly
trick on behalf of the larger parties to maintain their
domination.

Also obvious is the apparent horse-trading between PDI
Perjuangan and Golkar in a joint effort to gain the upper hand.
According to the new elections law, politicians who have been
named as suspects are entitled to be elected. This smells
strongly of the interests of Golkar in nominating its chairman,
Akbar Tandjung, who has been sentenced to three years'
imprisonment, although he has appealed to the Supreme Court.

Those in public positions are also allowed to participate in
the election campaign. This formulation will soon remind even the
most stupid citizen of the interest of PDI Perjuangan, the United
Development Party (PPP) or the National Mandate Party (PAN), to
which belong current government VIPs.

Yet another effort is being made to prevent the councils of
regional representatives (DPDs) having more political influence
vis-a-vis political parties. It seems that the new elections law
and other initiated reforms are intended to create a stronger
representation of the regions in national politics.

However, such good intentions face the attempts of the larger
parties to secure their hegemony. It was originally proposed that
DPD members should not be elected and recruited from among party
members who were expected to occupy seats within the House of
Representatives. The hope here is that national politics would
not be dictated entirely by the larger political parties.

This attempt at political reform is now confronted by some
larger political parties that want to bring in their members into
DPDs, under the pretext that party members should be entitled to
some seats within the council of regional representatives,
otherwise those seats would be occupied by the military only.
That is highly dubious in the face of new developments.

First, the dual function of the military has been at least
formally revoked since the time of the administration of then
president Abdurrahman Wahid. Since then the Military has given up
its institutional participation in national politics. This means
the engagement of military people in politics can be carried out
legitimately on a personal basis, without any military ties.

Secondly, the assumption regarding prospective Military
domination within DPDs implies an underestimation of the
capability of civilian politicians at the regional level.
Meanwhile, the idea of having a council of regional
representatives was initially to overcome dissatisfaction with
the existing political parties.

National politics should not depend on the whim of political
parties. This is because larger parties often rely more on the
majority of votes at their disposal, rather than on the substance
or nature of political issues.

For example, instead of pushing for a legal regulation that
prohibits the simultaneous assumption of public office and the
carrying out of a party function, legislators now tend to approve
rules and regulations that allow and enable officials to
participate in political campaigns for the next general election.
The survival of political parties seem to be the No. 1 priority,
whereas political changes toward democratization are set aside or
are made to wait for "Godot".

Besides, corruption and money politics are not a rarity among
the parties. The financing of the next election campaign has
become the main focus of most, instead of the financing of their
political programs. A lot of money is being spent on the
attainment of power, but only very little is allocated for the
use of that power in programs that might benefit the
constituencies in particular, and the people at large.

Politicians are very much tempted to undergo a role seduction
of becoming the middlemen who are willing and prepared to serve
anybody who can pay.

Many now understand that a great deal of public interest is
not yet represented by the political parties. Who, among party
politicians, cares about increasing unemployment and who gives
special attention to the rising number of the poor, for instance?

Third, party politicians who occupy the legislature turn out
not always to be necessarily the best brains in this country, nor
the most solid personalities on which to rely. This is reflected
in recruitment of House candidates, often done on the basis of
whether the candidates are loyal to their party -- even if this
might be detrimental to the public interest.

We must trust our political parties because no democracy would
be possible without their existence and operations. However,
while the parties have yet to mature, we can only hope that the
experiment with the councils of regional representatives will be
able to cover the deficit within political parties.

Their role should be encouraged in order to be able to take
over some political roles that used to be neglected by the
parties.

The crucial question is whether most members of the political
community are oriented toward political changes that facilitate
political reform and democratization -- or whether most are more
comfortable with the existing status quo, where survival seems to
be the only concern of party politicians.