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.