Will new parties bring democracy?

Will new parties bring democracy?

By Yulius P. Hermawan

BANDUNG (JP): While the new law on political parties has not
been formulated yet, enthusiasm for establishing new parties has
led to the creation of new political alignments in Indonesia.
Several mass organizations have proclaimed the formation of new
parties (see article written by I. Haryanto, Jakarta Post on June
6, 1998). Others are still thinking about forming parties, and
look likely to do so soon.

This phenomenon indicates that political parties are seen as
essential to the "reform order". Broadly speaking, in Western
democracy there is little doubt that political parties play a
considerable role in establishing stable democratic politics.
Their functions include articulating and aggregating interests,
and organizing and promoting candidates for governmental office
through general elections.

Yet, some questions need to be considered further: will new
alignments in the pretransitional process really bring about
democratization? How can political parties improve
democratization in a country which for many years suffered from
authoritarianism?

There are at least three theoretical reasons why these
questions matter. The first reason is that, in many former
authoritarian countries, political parties tend to lack
experience in democratic tradition because they had little or no
chance to learn and practice democracy due to the implementation
of authoritarian rules.

The lack of such political experience may lead parties to make
political mistakes and misjudgments in early phases of party
formation. These mistakes and misjudgments inevitably affect
parties' political behavior in new political circumstances.
Moreover, while political parties lost their chance to learn
democratic traditions, they were forced to support the
authoritarian regime or, if they did not do so, they were
disbanded.

The lack of experience as regards to democratic procedures and
parties' habits of operating in a nondemocratic environment
during an authoritarian era inevitably affect how, and to what
extent, parties promote democratization in the first stages of
the transition. Having struggled to oppose authoritarianism,
parties will now experience difficulty in negotiating with other
parties or the government when they once had to accept proposals
presented by their counterparts.

Compromising may be difficult for parties who for many years
experienced various refusals from the authoritarian regime. If
they fail to win support for their proposals, they may engage in
extra-legislative actions, such as hunger strikes, boycotting the
legislature or being absent from decision-making situations
rather than accepting others' proposals. Consequently their
activities may hinder democratization.

The transition to democracy in South Korea shows how difficult
it is for parties to practice democratic principles in the
transitional period. South Korean parties often reached a
deadlock when negotiating proposals because each party wanted
their proposals to be accepted. Opposition parties then boycotted
parliament and hindered the ruling party's assemblymen in
entering parliament. Taiwan and some countries in southern Europe
are other instances that show similar problems.

Second, while parties have to adjust to new traditions, they
face a real problem as regards the uncertainty of new
circumstances. Even though a set of rules has been introduced (or
remains in the making), it may not guarantee the certainty of new
politics. The rules may be changed or remain open to debate.

Meanwhile, the democratic political system is still "absent"
or is a provisional one as an alternative for achieving the
change from an authoritarian political system. Accordingly, while
they deal with the formation of parties, they have to be
concerned also with the establishment of a certain type of
political system. Yet the negotiations between remaining elements
of the authoritarian system and opposition parties to adopt a
certain new kind of political system becomes essential in the
first stage of democratization.

The negotiation may raise another problem because each party
would attempt to implement a type of system which it considers
would strengthen its own position in the new politics. In this
sense, their preferences may create a serious obstacle to the
establishment of a stable democratic system.

Moreover, the absence of a well-institutionalized party system
creates a serious problem as well. The party system reflects the
pattern of competition and cooperation between different parties
as well as the distribution of strength among existing political
parties. The transitional period becomes an era which leads to
the formation of a party system.

Since contesting polls and political participation are
guaranteed in a democracy, the party system emerges out of
competing parties. The competition among parties determines which
party may exist and which one collapses, depending on the number
of votes they gain in general elections. The party system in a
democracy is not created merely by the government or any other
institution, but it develops from the political constellation
formed by competing parties. Once it emerges, it is influenced by
the state as well as by political parties.

The genesis of a party system may look simple. In fact, the
politics of coalition-making among parties and the politics of
separation of coalition parties make the creation of a party
system a complex and uncertain issue. Despite the vulnerability
for factional strife within coalitions, political parties often
attempt to form a coalition. They see the formation of a
coalition as an inevitable path to fulfill requirements set by
law or to counter other parties' moves in the legislative body,
since such a coalition means the accumulation of power for the
party within the legislature.

Once a coalition is formed, it has to deal with the problem of
consolidation. The cohesiveness of a coalition is questionable
since the differences among those forming it tend to be difficult
to overcome. Consequently, factional disputes become a latent
problem, and can even dissolve a coalition. The party system
cannot be secured and remains fluid. This situation may lead to
uncertainties in a new democratic system.

Third, political parties are often created around "charismatic
leaders" whose popularity evolved during the authoritarian era.
The parties' cohesiveness then will be influenced by these
leaders. The popularity of the leaders will also become an
attribute which plays a major role in vote gathering in general
elections. This will bring about the so-called personalism-
centered politics.

There should be a clear-cut mechanism which determines to what
extent party leaders may exert their influence within their
party. However, there is another obstacle. In the transitional
period, the popular figures would remain powerful for both
cohesiveness and the party's popularity. The question is how the
figures themselves perceive the significance of their party for
real politics? In many cases, the figures see their parties as a
tool for achieving the top political spot. They then would take
any chance to hold governmental office, by exerting their
influence within their parties. If they did so, it would be
another serious obstacle to democratization.

How can democracy be established under these circumstances?
Can political parties, especially undemocratic ones, improve
democratization in the country?

Two hypothetical propositions may be presented to asses the
extent to which democracy may be established.

First, political parties need to be organized democratically
so that they may improve democratization. The more democratic
political parties there are, the more democratic the country is
likely to be. The explanation is simple; it is considered
impossible to democratize a country if its political parties do
not practice democratic principles within party organizations.
Being a proponent of democratization means getting used to
democratic principles. To get used to those principles is only
possible if parties implement those principles within their
organizations. Hence, political parties should be created and
organized on a democratic basis. In fact, this is not a simple
matter for either well established or newly established parties.

The second proposition suggests that parties do not need to be
internally democratic so long as they are committed to acting
democratically outside their organization. Democratically
organized parties may develop simultaneously with the
implementation of democratic principles in the country. This
proposition indicates that parties' cohesiveness is more
important than how democratic the parties are. So long as they
act cohesively in competition with other parties, they may
promote the implementation of democratic principles. Moreover,
the cohesiveness of parties is very important, since parties have
to compete with others to win general elections or to gain enough
legislative seats to have influence in the new political system.
Hence, performance outside the organization is more important
than performance within the organization.

The formation of parties at the initial stage of
democratization may justify the second proposition. The most
important party's task is to gain enough seats in the legislative
body, so that the party may be permitted to survive. Yet another
problem arises. When the democratic manner in competition does
not prove helpful in acquiring votes, so-called money politics
may be considered as a breakthrough. The new law on political
parties could set a limit on campaign funds. However, it would
not prove helpful if parties concerned only with seat-gathering
used any means to show that they do not break the law.

There is no need to be overly skeptical about the rise of new
political parties. However, many new political tasks may need to
be handled well. This is to say that establishing democracy is
not simple. Without commitment to establishing a rule on
democratic competition and respecting this rule in its
implementation, new political alignments will further deepen
political uncertainty.

The author is a Monash University graduate and lecturer on
political science at the Catholic University of Parahyangan and
researcher at Parahyangan Center for International Studies,
Bandung.