P

rabowo Subianto'€™s Red-and-White Coalition successful power grab for control of the House of Representatives leadership positions left Joko Widodo'€™s Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) reeling as new members were inaugurated on Oct. 1. The strong-arm tactics employed by the Red-and-White stand in stark contrast to the established political culture and have been considered offensive to the point of being described as '€œundemocratic'€. International analysts and domestic observers alike have decried moves to repeal direct local elections and consolidate power within legislative bodies as dramatic setbacks in Indonesia'€™s process of democratization.

Many of these alarmist claims struggle to distinguish between undemocratic ambitions and undemocratic means. Thus far, Prabowo'€™s allies have operated within legal mechanisms available, and have capitalized upon ambiguities within regulatory and procedural definitions. While their choices may be '€œunpopular'€, they are not '€œundemocratic'€ or '€œunconstitutional'€ as confirmed by the Constitutional Court recently.

Though I do not condone or support the policy direction of the Red-and-White Coalition, I also do not agree with the exaggerated claims that recent developments mark the death of democracy in Indonesia. I would instead argue that the presence of a strong adversary should be seen as a positive opportunity for the deepening of Indonesian democracy.

The wave of political reform that finally swelled and broke in 1998 ultimately resulted in a relatively shallow transition that was carried out during a time of tremendous national fragility. Aceh'€™s civil war was still raging, the monetary crisis had crippled the Indonesian economy, ethnic cleansing was being carried out in parts of Kalimantan and inter-religious conflict was brewing in the East.

Some scholars gave serious consideration as to whether the country as currently constructed, would even survive. As such, Indonesia understandably balked at the opportunity to carry out a deep and painful political transition which would have purged authoritarian actors from the bureaucracy and prevented their return to power.

The bombastic and alarming calls issued by Prabowo'€™s Red-and-White Coalition serve as a public wakeup call to a host of issues that remain unsettled more than 15 years after reformasi. Its no-holds-barred style rings in a new era of hardball politics in Indonesia, which will offer the following crucial benefits.

First, recent events have forced the public to question whose interests their representatives truly have at heart. Are they, and should they serve as agents of parties that are driven by personality rather than ideology '€” parties that offer no meaningful avenue for public participation? Or should elected officials serve as a vessel to aggregate and convey the aspirations of the people to the national stage?

As a corollary, the public is increasingly paying attention to the transparency of voting mechanisms and politician'€™s track records. Because of the present consensus-driven decision-making mechanisms employed by the House, individual politicians are rarely afforded the opportunity to cast an individual vote, as key decisions have been made in committee and are generally rubberstamped by a plenary session.

The vote on the Regional Elections (Pilkada) Law saw a combined total of 17 Democrat and Golkar members reject the party line and vote for what they felt was the public will. This is a high-risk maneuver that carries severe penalties and reprimands; however, in terms of the public, it offers insights on where their representatives stand on a particular issue.

Recent political dynamics have lent credibility to further discussions of instituting political primaries, and reforming the process by which candidates are selected. A number of political parties have put forth half-hearted attempt so collect '€œpublic input'€ through the use of opinion polling and focus group discussions; however none thus far have created a genuinely open process for public input that produces binding results.

New efforts are needed to improve and potentially narrow the overwhelming field of candidates. For the national legislative race in April, voters were faced with an average ballot of 85 candidates, which raises the investment of time required to cast an educated vote to an unacceptably high level over an incredibly short period.

Among the most intriguing conversations that the Red-and-White Coalition forces to the fore is the question of the presidential veto. Currently, as an oddity in the realm of constitutional democracies, the Indonesian president has no regular mechanism to block legislation that lands on his/her desk for signature.

The two choices left are to sign it for immediate effect or to allow it to automatically enter the force of law after a 30-day period. Indonesia is entering a new political season, in which control of the government is split for the first time in its history, and in which the public may see a need for greater presidential authority to act as a check on an otherwise runaway legislature.

Ultimately, the current situation helps to open the public'€™s eyes to the fact that democracy is fundamentally built upon the principle of conflict, not consensus. The conflict of policy directions and priorities is intrinsic to the balance of power, both within the House and among the branches of government.

Far from being a drawback, this conflict actually forces the moderation of radical positions into compromises that can be ultimately agreed upon by the majority.

As the national motto '€œunity in diversity'€ embodies, there is value in our differences. This concept should not be narrowly applied to identity issues such as race or ethnicity, but also to the broad spectrum of political ideas that are espoused throughout the archipelago. Only this system of conflict, by which ideas are ultimately judged, is capable of producing the unity of direction and purpose for the betterment of the nation.

Indonesia has been given a free pass in many ways, both by its own people and the international community. The pitfalls present in the legal ambiguity have only been navigated through an all-inclusive, cartel style of politics, certainly over the last decade.

Now is the time for the country to face a number of crucial choices as a country, and as a society, about how it is and should continue to be governed.