Commentary: Welcome to the Indonesian House of Gelato 2009

Endy M. Bayuni ,  Jakarta   |  Wed, 07/09/2008 10:47 AM  |  Headlines

Going to the elections in Indonesia next year for many people will be like a child going to an ice cream parlor: There's so many to choose from. The General Elections Commission on Monday announced 34 political parties eligible to contest the parliamentary elections in April, 16 of which automatically qualified and 18 of which are newly registered parties.

OK, it doesn't beat the 64-flavors gelato house I once found in Toronto. But we have enough of a variety of political parties to confuse, elate or even annoy voters. Just like the child in the ice cream parlor, he is either happy he has so many to choose from, confused about which one to choose or annoyed because he just wants to buy the tried and true flavors of chocolate, strawberry or vanilla.

With the 2009 elections, if you already know what you want, then you will ignore the temptation from all the other parties. If you have not decided yet, you may find yourself confused but at the same time feeling empowered, because you know the fate of the nation, for once, will depend to some extent on how you choose. On this day, your vote counts.

But just like some children (and adults too) who end up buying the wrong flavor(s), there is always the possibility that some voters end up choosing, out of sheer confusion, the party they did not wish to vote for.

For what it's worth, Indonesia is going to continue to have a multiparty political system in 2009, with all its consequences that include having a coalition government (because no one party will win enough majority votes), and the messiness of such a form of government.

In 1999, 48 parties took part in the first democratic elections in Indonesia in over four decades. In 2004, the number fell to 25. One would have thought the number would have been halved again in 2009. Instead we have 34.

Some may say we are backtracking on reform because the number of parties has gone up. But others will say this is a reflection of the political pluralism in the country. Limiting the number would certainly be undemocratic and we have been down that road before.

Compare this to the two-party system found in major Western democracies, where it's efficient and the outcomes are almost predictable, or at least only one of two possibilities. How about Soeharto's Indonesia, when we had a three-party system but where one of them absolutely controlled the whole process and the other two were simply there to make up the number and prevent it from looking like a one-party state?

A two-party system is probably the most efficient and still democratic system if the two are almost equal in size and each take turns in the government. In a more mature industrial society, the division would not be so much ideological as it would be different outlooks of life, one camp liberal or progressive and the other conservative. There are enough forces for change as well as for the defense of the status quo. Under this political system, society progresses at a pace the majority feels most comfortable.

Desirable as it may be, the two-party system, at least for now, is beyond Indonesia.

We are still too complex a society, perhaps even immature, to be divided along the liberal versus conservative lines. Besides, the trauma of Soeharto's imposed three-party system is still too deeply felt for us to want to limit the number of political parties in the national elections.

Given the diversity in our society in ideological terms, the multiparty system still works best for Indonesia as a mechanism in selecting our national leadership.

The best we can do is adapt and make the best of the agreed system.

If voters return 10 or more political parties to the House of Representatives, as they did in 2004, then we must respect their wishes. If voters pick the candidate from a smaller party rather than a major party in the ensuing presidential election, then we must abide by this wish as well.

In 2004, the nation voted the Golkar Party and the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) the two largest parties in the House, but voted Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who was nominated by the much smaller Democratic Party, as president.

The message from voters was clear: No one person, and no one institution, must be vested with too much power. We have had enough of that under Sukarno and Soeharto.

This left the elected leaders in 2004 in a state of confusion. Although Indonesia is a presidential system, and Yudhoyono was elected with 62 percent of the vote in the runoff against the incumbent Megawati Soekarnoputri, he eventually opted for a coalition government. We ended up having a president in a parliamentary system of government.

Can you blame the voters for creating this confusion when the system actually allows for the multiparty system? Hey, can you blame a child with his choices when you take him to a gelato house and let him choose for himself which flavors he wants? Give the child what he wants. If voters want power sharing arrangements, then they shall have it.

Whatever the outcome of the 2009 elections, no matter how confusing it is, the elected parties and leaders will have to figure out for themselves how to govern this complex country.

Copyright © 2008 The Jakarta Post - PT Bina Media Tenggara. All Rights Reserved.