When will the political elite ever learn?

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.