Why does the government have no opposition

By Martin Jenkins

JAKARTA (JP): After a honeymoon period of some three months, Abdurrahman Wahid's administration has been characterized by seemingly endless bickering among the nation's political elite. All the squabbling is hardly surprising, however, given that the coalition government was formed from a power-sharing arrangement in which all the largest parties were awarded Cabinet posts in spite of their quite different political agendas.

The coalition includes representatives from seven parties, ranging from parties in the "axis force" (the non-secular faction) to the nationalist-secular parties of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan) and the National Awakening Party (PKB). There is no government opposition. Even the former authoritarian Golkar Party has posts in the current Cabinet.

When the government was formed many argued that all of the major political parties had to be accommodated in the new government to foster "nation building" following the economic and political turmoil that ravaged the country and even threatened to tear it apart. Only by including all the major parties in the coalition could reconciliation take place.

Such an arrangement does not make for an effective and responsible government, however. With no opposition, who should provide the much-touted "checks and balances" which are so essential in any democracy? Who is expected to take on the vested interests? If it is left to the politicians from the parties in the coalition to criticize the government, then they will surely be seen as hypocritical and two-faced.

Take, for instance, the speaker of the People's Consultative Assembly and the leader of the National Mandate Party (PAN), Amien Rais. He originally supported Abdurrahman's presidential candidacy even though he knew full well of the President's poor medical well-being.

Later, however, he expressed support for Golkar deputy chairman Agung Laksono's suggestion that an independent medical team be set up to examine the President's physical and mental health. Conflicting statements such as these naturally give rise to confusion and result in political instability.

The role of elections is to provide a means to elect and, more importantly, to dismiss a government. This is a more basic function than electing individual legislators. Without an opposition, however, how can the electorate who are dissatisfied with the government vote to remove it?

Indonesian voters will have almost nothing to decide in future elections. Whatever party they choose, the government will stay basically the same!

It would be far better to have a government formed from a coalition of parties that have a majority of House seats. A coalition with an opposition would keep the governing parties on their toes. They would know that if they did not perform well then they could be kicked out in the elections.

In addition, the president should preferably come from the largest party in the coalition. That would be more democratic than having the president chosen by the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) -- Abdurrahman was elected President even though PKB only managed to muster a paltry 51 seats in the 1999 general election compared to an impressive 154 seats by Megawati's PDI Perjuangan.

With an opposition, criticism of the government would become more focused. Moreover, politicians from parties in the government coalition would be less likely to become involved in needless squabbling.

Fewer confusing and contradictory statements would be made, hopefully meaning less political uncertainty and, ultimately, an improvement in economic conditions.

The writer is a consultant at an Indonesian company in Jakarta.