When will the political elite ever learn?

J. Soedjati Djiwandono, Jakarta

In a number of respects the elections of 2004 have been far different from any that we have experienced before in history. For the first time ever, we have used the so-called "open proportional system" for a legislative election. For the first time, too, we have directly elected the president and vice president.

Understandably, however, the reformed electoral systems have entailed certain problems not only for the people at large, but also for the politicians. For more than half a century, we had elected only the political parties, through a "closed proportional system", whereupon the political parties would appoint their own legislative candidates - supposedly to be "representatives of the people" - at the central as well as local legislatures.

This time around, we elected not only the political parties, but also the candidates offered by the political parties. This, because of our lack of experience, and because many of us did not know our legislative candidates due to a distinct lack of proper promulgation, was risky.

We had to elect the candidate as well as the political party to which he or she belonged. And if we got it wrong, it was our choice of the political party that counted, not of the candidate, which was then considered invalid.

In that case, the political party (elected wrongly) would determine its own candidate. And with a number of candidates offered by twenty-four parties, it was no joke. The political parties, which had mostly been reluctant to adopt the open proportional system anyway, tried their best to "benefit" from this trick in return for agreeing to the adoption of the new system.

The people, however, were no less smarter than the politicians. Many of them already had some idea of which presidential candidates they were likely to vote for. And with that in mind, many of them seemed to have ignored the legislative candidates, and chosen to elect a political party that would nominate a certain presidential candidate.

This was meant to help the political party concerned to get enough seats in the House of Representatives (DPR) to meet the requirement of 3 percent of seats in the House to be eligible to nominate a presidential candidate.

As stated before, the reforms in the electoral system also created problems for the political elitists. It turned out -- God have mercy on us! -- that it was not easy even to find candidates with so much as a high school education, and confirmed by genuine diploma, among the parties, supporters and sympathizers. There were numerous cases of false diplomas being proffered by legislative candidates, especially at the local levels.

The most difficult seemed to have been the problem faced by presidential candidates nominated by political parties -- the only way to a presidential nomination. What they did before the first round of the presidential election -- each of them forming a nationalism-Islamism "coalitions" -- seemed to have confused the people rather than helping the people to cast their votes.

After all, such coalitions were meaningless. I wrote an analysis on this subject, Fallacies of the nationalism-Islamism alignment in this paper on May 28, 2004. The aim, surely, was to win as many votes as possible.

The presidential and vice-presidential candidates were to publish their respective "vision, mission, and program". Interestingly, the three terms were basically no more than formulations of ideals. It is, however, understandable for two reasons. None of them were used to formulating an election "platform".

Secondly, it must have been difficult to prepare such an election platform. How could they determine the focus? In this country, what problem is not urgent? What problem is not serious and complex? What problem can be tackled within a period of five years? What issue is not controversial? You just mention one, you have got it. Corruption, supremacy of law, education, poverty, social and economic injustice, unemployment, displaced persons, the list can never be exhaustive!

In a sense, therefore, the political elite deserve our sympathy. But if they cannot learn much from our own experience, perhaps they could have learned from the experience from other more seasoned politicians of other countries.

Moreover, the political elite did not seem to learn from our own experience of reform. They seemed to continue to believe that the people would heed and simply obey their "instructions", not only the active members, but all their supporters and sympathizers.

Gus Dur (Abdurrahan Wahid) stated in public more than once that he would not vote, saying, however, that he did not give his blessing for Hasyim Muzadi to be the running mate of Megawati, and instead gave his blessing to his own younger brother, backed by Nahdlatul Ulama-based political party, PKB, to be the vice presidential candidate for Wiranto of Golkar.

Indeed, it was not possible to judge after the vote, which was a secret ballot. Still, indications were clear, that even with Gus Dur's blessing it did not matter as the Wiranto-Solahuddin team lost the vote in the first round.

What our politicians seem to have failed to learn is that the people have realized it and now enjoy their newly won freedom. They are proud of it. They are proud particularly for being able for the first time, ever, to directly vote for their choice of president and vice president, rightly or wrongly.

I believe they also understand or at least are aware, that the political elite have established new coalitions, on behalf of the political parties under their leadership without clear basis nor clear aims, except to take part in the process of horse-trading in the case of victory on the part of their presidential and vice-presidential candidates they are now supporting.

It is thus clear that most of our political elite love more than anything else; power, particularly executive power, which they seem to see as greater than the power of the legislature.

Hamzah Haz, the outgoing vice president and leader of the PPP (United Development Party), explicitly claimed to be an Islamic party striving for the promotion of Islamic law as a source of state law, but has now become a member of secularist "Nationhood Coalition".

The worst case of a lack of learning was that of Akbar Tanjung -- as the leader of the Golkar Party -- who expelled around a dozen party executives for supporting Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, instead of Megawati, now a partner of Golkar in the Nationhood Coalition.

It could be, however, a fatal mistake. It may strengthen the determination of those expelled from Golkar to support the Susilo-Kalla presidency. Secondly, it may encourage other Golkar members, supporters and sympathizers to join the Susilo-Kalla team. And lastly, it might not only tarnish the image of the Golkar Party, but at stake would be the future of Golkar itself.

Indeed, the common people have learned quicker than the present generation of political elite. When will they ever learn?

The writer is a political analyst.