TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
The rise of the Democratic Party in a scarcity of political plenty
So much to choose from, so little choice
Change Size
So much to choose from, so little choice. When Indonesians flock to the polls in the April 9 legislative elections, their ballots will in effect start shaping the presidential election.
The results of the most up-to-date poll released Wednesday by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Jakarta support what other pollsters have already indicated. The Democratic Party, the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) and the Golkar Party are likely to overwhelm with up to half the total votes, with the former holding a significant advantage over the latter two.
All others are distant contenders, unlikely to pose notable resistance.
The particulars of the CSIS survey, conducted in association with the Institute for Social and Economic Research, Education and Information (LP3ES), the University of Indonesia and the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI), also indicate a basic rule of thumb in any election: Campaigns are not a collection of issues. They focus on a theme and personage.
In the absence of an identifiable theme, voters need a common figure as a focal point for their choice. As the CSIS data shows, nearly one-third of those who opted for the Democratic Party did so not because of the program, but because of the figure behind the party – President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.
Similar numbers were also found from supporters of the PDI-P.
The presence of chairwoman Megawati Soekarnoputri held twice the attraction of the party’s political platform.
Even though voters will have the choice to directly select legislative candidates, voting behavior is predominantly determined by the party’s national figure.
The trend is consistent. In the 2004 legislative elections, more than 50 percent of voters opted to select the party, even though they had the option of choosing an individual candidate.
A study by the Indonesia Survey Institute (LSI) last month found 44 percent of respondents tended to choose the party only, compared to 36 percent who chose candidates, and 12 percent who selected both.
Hence the rarity of a Democratic Party or PDI-P candidate’s poster without a montage of either Yudhoyono or Megawati in the background.
This probably explains the phenomenal rise of the Democratic Party and the decline of the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) and Golkar.
The Democratic Party is the “new” PKS of the 2009 election, with likely projections suggesting it is riveting voters away from other parties, secular and nationalist alike, and quadrupling their returns.
Riding Yudhoyono’s perceived public poise, the Democratic Party has succeeded where the PKS failed to consolidate support in rural areas.
The decision by Vice President Jusuf Kalla to now run as president may have been a consequence of internal political circumstance, but from a campaign strategy point of view, it was a key vote-saving move.
By promoting Kalla’s visage, Golkar is galvanizing support for a tangible figure, and more importantly, stealing some of Yudhoyono’s thunder by reminding voters that Kalla (and Golkar) too should be credited for the successes of the incumbent administration.
It has been the absence of electable choices, in sea of a dozen self-declared presidential candidates and three dozen parties, which has helped propagate the pro-Yudhoyono wave.
In politics, domestic and international, the prime entities naturally play a balancing role of swaying the balance of power from tipping toward the extremes.
In pre-World War I Europe, it was Britain who swayed the balance of power in the competing rivalries of France and Germany.
In Indonesian politics, it is the established nationalist-secular parties who play that role.
The flamboyant displays of amicability between Golkar and the PDI-P are both a warning and strategic move against the emergence of the Democratic Party as a political powerhouse.
How serious this alliance will be ultimately lies not on Golkar’s or the PDI-P’s returns on April 9, but on the strength of the Democratic Party in the polls.
A second factor to take into account is Golkar itself. As a political creature, Golkar has always been in government.
In fact, it probably does not know how to be the opposition. Expect the intrigue to continue.
Some have suggested that the most significant number in all polls has been the consistent high number of undecideds, and that half of those who responded for a certain party said their vote could change.
But late-deciding voters will want their vote to matter. Given the predominance of the Democratic Party, the PDI-P and Golkar in the public debate, it is safe to assume that their choice will be shaped by the prevailing discourse.
