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.