Why does the government have no opposition

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.