Whose House is it?

Whose House is it?

In the next few days, the country's three political
organizations will be finalizing their lists of candidates for
the 1997 general election. More publicity has been given to
Golkar, which won the past five elections by landslide margins,
than to the United Development Party (PPP) and the Indonesian
Democratic Party (PDI), and there is no reason to think that
Golkar will lose its majority next year.

Golkar appears to have narrowed the field to 850 names, or two
candidates for each of the 425 seats being contested in the House
of Representatives. The Golkar list, which is now said to be in
the hands of President Soeharto in his capacity as the group's
chief patron, includes names that are familiar to the public.
They include cabinet ministers, business leaders, media figures
and even an athlete. As has happened in the past, popular
candidates are often used as "vote getters" but not given a seat
after the elections.

The PPP and PDI have been preparing their own lists in a much
quieter fashion. PPP chairman Ismail Hasan Metareum has made it
clear that he is being more careful about recruiting popular or
vocal public figures, following the bitter experience he had with
Sri Bintang Pamungkas, who turned out to be more of liability
than an asset to his party. Soerjadi, the leader of the
government-sanctioned PDI executive board, is also going to be
more careful. He has said that he will not select the likes of
Sophan Sophiaan and Laksamana Sukardi, both of whom have backed
Megawati Soekarnoputri in her battle for the party's leadership.

A lot of factors go into the way the three contestants select
candidates. It certainly is more than a game of parceling seats
or positions. Political power play between the factions will
reflect the final list, as would the questions of party loyalty
and the capability of candidates. Golkar has also promised to
rejuvenate its faction in the House, setting both term and age
limits on candidates, and setting minimum quotas for people from
the younger generation and for women.

But we believe that equally important, or perhaps even more
important than those considerations, in the selection process is
the need to find candidates who can truly and effectively
represent the people. That is after all the title that they will
carry the moment they set foot in the House after their election.

Those responsible for the selection process should take into
account the sorry state of the House, which reflects on our
present state of democracy. In spite of some performance
improvements under the stewardship of Speaker Wahono since 1992,
the House still carries the disturbing tag of rubber stamp. It
has yet to draw up a single bill, with every piece of legislation
coming from the government. With the House under pressure because
of mounting legislation, some of the bills may have been passed
without close scrutiny. Most political analysts say that the
legislative branch has been powerless and ineffective in keeping
tabs on the executive branch.

Furthermore, it has been suggested that Golkar's selection of
candidates is aimed at securing the situation in 1998, a
presidential election year. Although that is indeed an important
political event, surely a more pressing agenda is the
strengthening of democracy in this country.

Given that political reform is unlikely in the foreseeable
future, the least Golkar, PPP and PDI could do is help strengthen
the House. This much they owe to the voters.