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.