What are the consequences of a PPP and PDI alliance?

What are the consequences of a PPP and PDI alliance?

Signs of an alliance between supporters of the ousted
Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI) leader Megawati and the United
Development Party (PPP) in the election campaign have been taking
shape.

Political scientist Riswandha Imawan of Yogyakarta's Gadjah
Mada University talked to The Jakarta Post about the new
phenomenon.

Question: What do you think about it?

Answer: There are three possibilities in the 1997 election. I
could have given you the exact percentage of each possibility had
we been allowed to carry out the study freely. Therefore, I'll
describe it qualitatively.

The biggest probability is the alliance of Megawati supporters
with PPP to encounter Golkar supporters. Some may think it
impossible given that PDI is supposed to be a nationalist non-
Moslem party while PPP is a Moslem oriented one. PDI's non-Moslem
politicians, therefore, will have difficulties supporting PPP.

But that's no longer the case. It's now a matter of a fight
between the elite and the people. In this case, both PPP and PDI
suffer from the same oppression. They found a symbol of the
oppression in Golkar. This has opened the possibility for such an
alliance.

The less probable one is an election boycott by Megawati
supporters. Voters may choose not to turn up at polling booths or
render their vote invalid.

The lowest probability -- and the most impossible one -- is a
reconciliation between Megawati and Soerjadi (the government-
backed PDI leader). If this happens, it will be the surprise of
the century. This being the case, I cannot predict the election
result.

Q: Why is this so?

A: You see, Soerjadi has been given the government's total
support to manage the PDI supporters and politicians. Megawati,
on the other hand, has been under pressure. But this pressure has
won her people's sympathy. If all of a sudden they joined hands,
can you imagine what would happen next?

Q: Recently, Megawati called on her supporters not to participate
in the campaign. What do you think of this?

A: I think it was a calculated move as well as a realistic
statement. Calculated because she asked her supporters not to
take part in the campaign but not the election. Had she asked her
supporters to abstain from the election she would have been
easily trapped by the regulations.

Realistic, because, frankly speaking, what the government
wants is a campaign which highlights development programs. But to
do so you have to be able to create alternatives for programs
carried out by the present government.

The problem is the election campaign rules don't allow any
party to criticize government programs. How can you give
alternative programs when you're not allowed to criticize the
present ones?

Besides, all the three parties -- the PPP, Golkar and the PDI
-- have no accurate information about the on-going development
based on which they can create alternative programs.

Q: What do you mean?

A: Let me put it this way. Presently, Golkar is supposed to have
accurate information. But it's not Golkar who has it. It's the
bureaucrats, who happen to be Golkar cadres. Thus, what Golkar
claims as their own programs are actually what the government has
planned.

Had Golkar failed to get the leak, it would have been like the
other two parties. The situation, therefore, is just as funny as
the Abunawas story. An Indonesian government is supposed to be a
combination of the three existing political parties. Yet, it only
serves the dominant group.

Q: How do you know the three political parties do not have
accurate information about the course of development?

A: To know whether all the three parties have information, we can
conduct a test. Let's ask our government to place all the
bureaucrats in the same position as the Armed Forces. Thus, they
do not vote and their representatives are appointed. That way,
all information they have will be distributed evenly to the three
groups. If this happened, I could not guarantee that Golkar would
survive.

The three groups are actually in the same position. But Golkar
is better equipped for survival because it has more lifeboats
than the other parties. From this point of view, Megawati
supporters are best not to join the election campaign.

Q: Is it possible that Megawati supporters have stretched their
leader's statement too far by interpreting it as a call to
boycott the election?

A: I don't think so. Megawati has become a symbol of the civil
society movement. She has to be careful because she is commanding
respect not only from her supporters but the whole society.

Q: Are you saying Megawati's statement may also be acceptable to
others?

A: That's right. It's even possible that whatever Megawati says
will be accepted as an instruction, especially by her supporters.
For example, if Megawati says she won't vote, her supporters will
take it as an order and do the same.

Here, Megawati has to be extremely careful. If she does so,
she will be inviting problems for herself. She will be easily
pushed aside from the political arena. She may lose her
bargaining position.

But Megawati's stake is not in the election, but in the
People's Consultative Assembly next March. The sympathy she is
continuously receiving is a card to influence the formation of a
new alliance in the assembly, which in turn will influence the
assembly's decision.

It's worth noting that the 1997 election is not a fight among
the three political groups, but between the elite and the people.
These two agendas have been incompatible for a very long time.

Q: Can you elaborate on this?

A: For example, there has been a fierce debate on the national
car policy between the elite and the people. The elite believe it
is necessary for the nation, while the people think it would be
better if the funds were allocated for the poverty eradication
program.

Talking about which party will win the 1997 election,
therefore, is not what is important and relevant today.

Q: Which group represents the people?

A: Megawati has become the focal point. She serves as a symbol
which everyone feels they have the right to interpret and fit his
or her own interest.

Q: How has this symbol influenced the formation of a political
alliance in the assembly?

A: One of the most important issues for us is the succession of
the state's leadership. In Indonesian political culture, we have
what is called the tumpes kelor or the "all-out" culture.
If a leader falls from grace, the whole system built by him or
her will have to be put down too.

An erroneous political socialization for decades has helped
solidify the culture. This culture manifests itself in the
"either or" thinking. For instance, if it's not political
development, it has to be physical.

This is the line of thinking that causes many people to think
that the New Order is associated to Pak Harto while the Old Order
is associated to Bung Karno.

Every Indonesian believes that the next presidential term is
the last one for President Soeharto. Because of the "either or"
thinking people are now beginning to look for alternatives.

If such a thinking did not exist, there would have been no
need to do so. We can, and certainly should, place either Bung
Karno, Pak Harto or the next state's leaders in a linear line,
not in a dichotomous one like this. It's very strange to think
that if it's not Soeharto it has to be someone else of the Old
Order. Here Megawati will play her role.

Q: What about the alternatives? What are they?

A: There are plenty of them. Ginanjar Kartasasmita, Habibie, you
name them.

It's because of this "either-or" thinking that "Mr X" has not
yet come forward. He is probably too afraid to do so because of
the possibility of being accused as being against the incumbent.

It's obvious, therefore, that Megawati's present stature is,
more or less, the result of the government's mistake in
socializing politics.

Q: Could the "either or" thinking dent Megawati's stature given
the fact that people's negative perception of the Old Order still
exists?

A: I don't think so. Why? Because the people feel the authority's
arrogance has reached a nauseating level. It is very clear. You
can see how people are no longer afraid of beating a police
officer. They even do it openly. In Central Java, for example, it
was reported recently that people stoned a car of the regent.
Something unimaginable before, isn't it?

Megawati's recent call for supporters not to join the
campaign, has actually prevented them from marching on the
streets. This shows she cares for the fruit of development which
is notably from the New Order.

In other words, she is trying to show how much she dislikes
the enduring existence of the tumpes kelor culture.

It's also worth noting that Megawati has been continuously
teaching her supporters to respect the law. Her indictments to
court, in this case, have to be seen as Megawati's effort to take
legal steps instead of illegal ones, and so has her latest appeal
to supporters. It serves as a sympathetic gesture to maintain
peace and order in society.

Q: Does it mean that Megawati is about to bring change to the
country?

A: That's right. But Megawati is not that stupid to think she can
become president. I'm quite sure that she hasn't had an inkling
of a thought that her PDI faction would take over the government
once it wins the election exactly because she is not suffering
from the "either or" thinking. (swa)