Approaching its congress in Bali in April, it is natural that internal debates and even conflicts within the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) are heating up. One of the most controversial issues is whether the party should maintain its opposition stance or change it and become part of the government coalition.
Party chairman Megawati Soekarnoputri herself has always been strongly against the idea of joining the government.
Many elite members of the party share the view that it should avoid joining the government coalition because of at least two main reasons.
First, by joining the government the PDI-P will weaken the checks and balances in Indonesia.
Second, by joining the coalition PDI-P’s support base will be further weakened.
Sadly, these two arguments have no clear empirical base.
First, if we look at the Bank Century bailout scandal, despite the fact that the government coalition controls 75 percent of the seats in the parliament, the coalition members were not united in backing the government. This tells us that on issues which the parties’ elites perceive to have the potential to increase their own popularity, they will be reluctant to support the government in facing scandal.
We have heard many times how parties’ members of the coalition proclaim themselves as critical partners of the government. By declaring so, they were able to maneuver flexibly. On the one hand, as a partner, they are able to gain access to the spoils of SBY’s electoral victory. On the other hand, the critical character of their position allows them to criticize the government in the name of the people.
When the government implements populist policies, they can claim credit for such measures. When the government has to make tough and unpopular choices, the coalition partners can easily take different positions.
The question then, is how do these coalition partners differ from the opposition? This is not a hard question. The difference separating the critical partners of the government with the opposition parties is that opposition parties do not enjoy the spoils of SBY’s electoral victory. It is more convenient to become a critical partner of the government.
As long as the idea of a critical coalition partner within the government coalition is allowed, no one should be worried about the lack of opposition, because even those within the government coalition can freely and openly criticize the government whenever they like and whenever it is beneficial for them to do so.
This shows how urgent it is for SBY and his Democratic Party (PD) to create a clear coalition agenda which includes specific rules and sanction mechanisms. Without such, the goal to create an effective government by constructing a massive grand coalition will not be achieved.
Second, if we look to the past, the PDI-P has been in opposition for about five years since the 2004 election where the PDI-P got 18.53 percent of the national votes and SBY easily defeated its chairman Megawati. In the 2009 legislative and presidential elections support for the PDI-P further declined.
Being in opposition is profitable when there is a widespread negative perception toward the government. Keep in mind that SBY’s popularity, although declining, is still very high according the survey by the Indonesian Survey Institute (LSI) in February 2010.
In addition, there has not yet been a study done to confirm the idea that there is a traditional support base for the PDI-P that want their party to maintain its opposition status and will leave the party if the PDI-P changes its stance. One possible reason why the traditional support base of political parties, not only the PDI-P, is eroding is due to the fact that parties have become irrelevant political players. Their presence is not felt beyond posters, flags, and campaign ads. Parties’ support bases are eroding because what the politicians say is so different from what they do.
If the PDI-P were to fail in future elections, it will not be because the PDI-P stands as the government opposition or the PDI-P decides to take part in the government coalition. The effect of such a position will depend on the government performance in the next four years. Instead, the PDI-P’s future electoral performance will depend on how the PDI-P can stop the emerging perception of its corrupt image.
The allegation of corruption in the selection of Miranda Goeltom as the deputy governor of Bank
Indonesia which implicates many of the PDI-P’s key politicians will have a significant negative impact on the PDI-P’s future electoral performance.
In light of this reality, it is wise to be realistic. The current political structure still allows parties to become critical partners of the government, which means that the party can get access to state resources and yet maintain its critical stance when necessary. It is a convenient option for the PDI-P and probably not as costly as many have thought.
The writer is a researcher in the Department of Politics and International Relations at CSIS Jakarta. He is a PhD candidate at Northern Illinois University.
| 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|