What's in store after the June 7 elections?

What's in store after the June 7 elections?

By Budiono Kusumohamidjojo

JAKARTA (JP): God willing, Indonesians will take part in the
first free and democratic general election in 44 years on Monday.
No reasonable Indonesian would think about postponing the general
election or hope to see it go awry. After decades, Indonesia and
Indonesians have so much at stake in this one general election.
Still, while the 48 parties are making the best of the campaign
period to present themselves on the political stage with as much
furor as possible, one can observe how people in general are
striving not to let this great opportunity pass in vain.
Indonesia and Indonesians deserve the opportunity to build a
better society with a much more humane future.

Nevertheless, Indonesians will also have to be realistic in
terms of our inexperience with regards to such a big political
event. Holding a successful general election with about 115
million people participating in the vote is one thing, but
accepting the results of the elections could be a cumbersome
problem. No matter the goodwill and eagerness of the people and
most of their leaders, inexperience in accepting unexpected
results in the general election could place anybody at a
crossroads, for better or worse. Therefore, Indonesians will have
to be very mindful indeed, particularly beginning at sunset on
June 7, 1999.

Following the voting, ballots will be counted. Every
Indonesian entitled to and who had made use of their right to
take part in the elections will cautiously watch the outcome of
the counting. Provided that the general election is relatively
successful, the counting process will lead the nation hour by
hour, closer and closer to a reality that might not necessarily
please everybody. The most possible real result of the Indonesian
general election of 1999 is that no single party will come out as
a decisive winner or loser. If there is not one single winner who
can form a majority in the House of Representatives (DPR), there
will most likely be a coalition.

Therefore, statesmanship instead of rhetoric will be highly
indispensable after the general election. Building a qualified
coalition of parties in a pluralistic and heterogeneous nation
will require great political ability from those involved in the
process. Otherwise, not only all the 48 political parties
contesting the elections, but Indonesians in general would become
losers. Because we do not want the whole nation to become the
loser, some Indonesians will need to prepare themselves to see
the party they voted for on the losing side, in the role of the
opposition. Democracy includes and accommodates winners and
losers both. A democracy is not a democracy if it does not
respect the opposition. The absence of an opposition is valid
evidence of authoritarianism or a dictatorship.

A new Indonesian political constellation of a coalition of
governing parties and a coalition of opposition parties is to be
expected. As a matter of course, each coalition will be
challenged from time to time to maintain itself as a functioning
coalition rather than a lame duck amalgamation. A coalition must
guard against the constant risk of falling apart by mastering the
mechanisms that makes it work as a quasi but effective
institution. The mechanisms are a sort of vehicle that sets
proper positions for participants in a forum, in this case the
coalition. They also establish the role to be played by every
participant in order to attain a joint goal, while the success of
the roles depend on how the coalition members communicate in a
constructive dialogue. As a consequence, it is obvious that
dialogue is the core of any coalition, as it is the single medium
that may lead to a consensus.

Nevertheless, dialogue is not only the core of any coalition,
it also provides a channel to connect the governing (but
hopefully not ruling) coalition to the opposition coalition.
Regardless of how diametrical a position the opposition coalition
takes, they are bound to work with the governing coalition
through dialogue. Democracy will not work without dialogue. It is
sad to note that Indonesians in general were prevented from
practicing open and transparent dialogue over the last four
decades, since the time president Sukarno unveiled his Guided
Democracy doctrine in 1959. As a result, every Indonesian needs
to start from square one in the practice of simple and normal
dialogue.

The exercise seems to be far from simple, as the nation
includes about 358 ethnic groups scattered across 13,677 islands,
representing different views, customs and ways of thinking, but
all deserving to be treated as equals. To move toward a
successful democracy, Indonesians will have to start treating
each other with respect despite different backgrounds, rather
than placing such encounters in a stereoscope of adversity.
Widespread riots in various regions of the country during the
past three years has apparently proven that Indonesians speak one
language, but they do not share one vision.

Where do we start to build a common Indonesian vision? It is
likely that we will have to build the nation anew. Under the old
New Order regime, Indonesians used to be fenced within their
respective sectarian courts by the craftily practiced divide and
rule strategy of the regime. It is amazing to observe that most
Indonesians tacitly complied with this ghetto like atmosphere.

Consequently, the rule of the old New Order prevailed over the
precious process of rebuilding a nation that was severely damaged
by the 1965 political disaster. There is no wonder now if people
from Sumatra and people from Sulawesi know quite little about
each other, or if people in Java are aloof about people in Irian
Jaya or Maluku. People feel safe within their own area, but they
also steadily lose their sense of belonging to a greater nation.
Although breaking down fences will certainly bring about a
somewhat insecure feeling, it is time to break down those
sectarian fences to make people start to communicate with each
other. This is what is termed "communicative action" by Juergen
Habermas in his voluminous works.

Communicative action must not necessarily please everybody all
the time. But communicative action is essential among communities
and sociopolitical actors as well, regardless of whether they are
cooperating with each other or in conflict. As long as people
communicate with each other, there is a guarantee that a movement
toward consensus is taking place, and as long as such a process
is in the making, one can always expect the outcome to be a
common vision. In this respect, the June 7 general election
should mark the start of such a process, rather than simply
giving way to the expression of people's differing political
aspirations. The expression of people's political aspirations is
senseless if it does not lead to the building of a common vision
for the nation.

A common Indonesian vision should provide an equal platform
for every Indonesian citizen, regardless of gender, ethnicity,
religious or cultural background. An Indonesia for every
Indonesian citizen is an Indonesia that respects and protects the
very basic human rights of all Indonesians. Whatever the results
of the elections, it must bring about ways and means for the
realization of such an Indonesian vision. Only if based on such a
vision will democracy in Indonesia be civilized, and only in a
civilized democracy will no loser need to be frightened of
"democratic authoritarianism" on the part of a governing
coalition.

After June 7, all Indonesians will hopefully strive toward
building a civilized democracy based on a common Indonesian
vision. Only under such a scheme will there be no "losers" in the
general election, there will simply be "unlucky winners" in the
eyes of the luckier, civilized winners of the general election.

As the substance of a democratic general election lies in
placing those qualified to govern in the government and those
qualified to control government on the opposition bench, in a
genuine democracy there are no real losers, only metaphoric ones.

The writer is a legal consultant and lecturer in legal
philosophy based in Jakarta.