When politicians are still trapped by old way of thinking

Imam Cahyono, Jakarta

In politics there is no such thing as an everlasting enemy. This was proven in the declaration of the National Coalition on Aug. 19. A number of political parties that competed against each other in the April 5 legislative election have joined hands to form the coalition, which is a combination of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P), Golkar Party, the United Development Party (PPP) and the Prosperous Peace Party (PDS).

The coalition has several main points of cooperation: 1. Ensuring victory for Megawati Soekarnoputri and Hasyim Muzadi in the presidential runoff. 2. Establishing a strong, clean and effective government based on professionalism and collectivity. 3. Improving the effectiveness and role of legislative bodies in fighting for people's aspirations. 4. Improving the partnership between executive and legislative bodies across the country. 5. Improving the role of political parties within a more democratic atmosphere.

Certainly, the main goal of this coalition is to support Megawati and Hasyim against Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Jusuf Kalla in the Sept. 20 runoff. This support is indeed encouraging to Megawati, the incumbent President and the leader of the PDI-P. The founders of the National Coalition say theirs is a permanent coalition to build a strong government and a strong House of Representatives. If Megawati loses the election, they say they will form the opposition in the House.

Mathematically, this coalition could control a large number of votes in the House. The coalition would create an unassailable political block, with 307 seats in the 550-member House, made up of 127 seats from Golkar, 109 from PDI-P, 58 from PPP and 13 from the PKS. On paper, this coalition should win the runoff.

But this coalition is not without problems. First, the formation of the coalition was not based on a shared platform, but rather the desire of all the participants to attain power. The formation of this coalition is a valid political move. It can be categorized as a temporary coalition with one specific issue, the formation of a new government under the leadership of President Megawati and Vice President Hasyim.

Consequently, the National Coalition could spell an end to reform, regardless of who wins the Sept. 20 runoff. If elected, Megawati would have to accommodate the many different political interests of the parties that supported her, making it almost impossible for her to introduce breakthrough reforms. On the other hand, if Susilo is elected, he would have to spend much of his energy establishing good relations with members of the House. Both of these situations would increase political tension and could cause conflict in the country.

The declaration of the National Coalition represented the aspirations of the political elite, not the aspirations of regular party members. The National Coalition showed that party membership has its roots at the top, not in the rank and file. This can create a huge gap between the decisions taken by the party elite and the aspirations of its members.

In a democratic atmosphere, the principle of sovereignty guarantees the people's aspirations will be respected. Political parties should be founded by people who feel they have common aspirations and strive to ensure these aspirations become government policy. Hence, the political elite must listen to the wishes of their constituents rather than expressing their own personal interests. Unfortunately, for more than three decades the old political parties have only been used to mobilizing the elite, not serving to channel grassroot aspirations.

As a result, there is a large possibility a party's decisions at the central level will not be followed at the grassroots level. It is possible that lower-level members could regard this as a lack of consistency as regards the party's elite. Decisions made at the central level will not be obeyed if it is not in line with the aspirations of the grassroots.

In addition, direct elections also pave the way for the grassroots to part ways with the elite, as was seen in the first round of the presidential election. The voters in a direct election will take the personalities of the candidates into account, not agreements between party leaders. The people have their own wishes as regards who to choose. Parties can no longer control grassroots supporters in the electoral system.

The abuse of power is related to the neutrality of state officials. Political campaigning becomes a problem if the bureaucrats are mobilized, or if the police become involved. This can happen if state officials support one of the candidates, as happened in the case of the Banyumas Police VCD. State officials by law must remain neutral. The act of mobilizing supporters contradicts the main aim of democracy, which is to uphold the people's sovereignty.

All of these considerations indicate the National Coalition has fallen into the trap of thinking in the old way, as during Soeharto's New Order regime. The problem with the National Coalition is not just with who formed it, who is in it or whether it actually exists at the grassroots level. This coalition's most crucial problem is that its theme of mobilizing support still reflects the old way of thinking.

The formalities of a democratic system are still used without any real substance. The general election was held to legitimize the existing power in the eyes of the world, and was not a genuine contest to give people the opportunity to express their real hopes. This paradigm contradicts efforts to build a true democratic system.

Democracy, as philosopher John Dewey said, is not a form of government, but a way of life. What is sacred in democracy is not mechanisms, but value. And the main aim of democracy is not power, but the people's sovereignty.

The writer is a researcher at the Muhammadiyah Institute for Grassroots Empowerment and an activist at the Youth Muhammadiyah for Intellectuals Network. He can be reached at icahyo17@yahoo.com