Insight: Damned if they do, damned if they don't: Parties' dilemma

Ignas Kleden ,  Jakarta   |  Wed, 08/20/2008 10:17 AM  |  Headlines

Direct democracy is now an unthinkable choice for modern states, and certainly for a country the size of Indonesia. It remains a theoretical option reminiscent of Athens in ancient Greece, given that what is now generally understood as democracy is nothing but representative democracy.

People cast their votes, thereby delegating their rights to politicians expected to voice their aspirations and represent their interests within the parliament.

Questions are now rising in Indonesia about the role of political parties in supplying leaders and the ways they determine the worthiness of their candidates.

Two aspects are important in this regard: First, how many votes a candidate can hope to get from the constituency, and second, what position the candidate assumes in the party's list. Candidates are arranged in each list so those with a better prospect of winning are at the top of the list.

We can pose a legitimate question: What are the criteria for deciding the order of the candidates? The answer: Nobody knows, because these are the internal affairs of political parties.

That the criteria are not disclosed has led to the general belief that the position a candidate holds on a party's list depends on how much he or she contributes financially to the party. This seems to be a case of "money politics" at work in Indonesia. There is also a suspicion that political parties want to have the last say in the election of legislative candidates.

The so-called direct election of governors and regents or mayors at the provincial and district levels poses a challenge for political parties. Civil society groups and activists have proposed that independent candidates be allowed to run for regent or governor without necessarily having the backing of a political party. As long as there are enough people who want them, the argument goes, they should be allowed to run.

However, the terms and conditions of direct election are so demanding that only people who have either enough money or strong traditional support from their regions stand a real chance. Another political problem is the question of accountability: Who is in a position to control these independent politicians if they abuse their power? Political parties will have no authority in that case and one can rely solely on the effectiveness of social control.

There is also a strong objection to having independent candidates run for a position in the executive. If anyone can run independently for a seat in the executive, what is the role of political parties? If this practice is continued, it will weaken the position of political parties as the pillar of representative democracy in which the people determine their rulers and legislators only through political parties.

Difficult as it may be, one has to acknowledge the fact that after the 1998 political reform, the center of political gravity in Indonesia shifted from the executive body to the legislative body. From the position of having nothing to say during the Soeharto era, the legislative body now apparently wants to decide everything, even when it is obviously a case of power wielded by the executive body.

This situation appears to be the logical consequence of a mixed system, as in Indonesia one cannot say whether the country has a presidential or a parliamentary system. The thing is, the combination should be set up without too much contradiction. If people want to have a presidential system, they should not push for the strengthening of parliamentary aspirations and vice versa.

Now that the indirect campaign for legislative candidates at the national level has begun, some parties are trying to embark upon an alternative strategy. The National Mandate Party (PAN) is the first to apply majority rule without any party list in recruiting their candidates. The Golkar Party and the Democratic Party (PD) are following suit.

This attempt, however, may give rise to other serious problems. If one has to gain as many votes as possible in order to win, one will be tempted to concentrate only on vote getting, which results in internal rivalries with the potential to weaken party unity.

The competition within a party can turn outrageous and even furious, so much so that the victory of one member will coincide with the "death" of another as party members make use of any possible means to defeat their competitors. A free-for-all style of competition is likely to take place, which will damage the internal unity of the party to the extent that political cannibalism can occur.

The upshot is that political parties in Indonesia are facing serious problems, to say nothing of woes in financing. The need to keep the upper hand in the election leads naturally to money politics, unless each party is willing to declare publicly their criteria for putting people on the list.

On the other hand, to apply majority rule will naturally lead to internal competition, which will undermine party unity unless there are clear rules and regulations concerning the fairness of competition among party members. The one has to do with interparty competition, while the other is concerned with intraparty rivalry. The devils seem to threaten them from both outside and inside.

Fair competition? That is another term for fair play, which is the name of the game, but party politicians have to marshal their energy and imagination to ensure they have qualified candidates without too great a financial burden, and who are loyal to their party while also accountable to their constituents.

The writer is a sociologist and chairman of the Indonesian Community for Democracy.

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