W

atching the Golkar Party elite lock horns at the House of Representatives, we cannot help recollecting the characteristic, long-lasting joke by the late president Abdurrahman '€œGus Dur'€ Wahid about politicians who fought for seats every five years in the name of democracy. Gus Dur, speaking before a plenary House to explain his decision to dismiss two of his ministers in 2001, said he could not see differences between House lawmakers and kindergarten kids.

Many were angry with him at that time, but now who would dare to argue, especially after the House politicians displayed no hesitation to resort to the use of force in resolving their dispute? The latest spectacle of this childish conduct came on Monday when politicians belonging to the government-sanctioned Golkar camp under Agung Laksono forcibly took over the office of the party'€™s faction in the House from the rival group loyal to Aburizal Bakrie.

Losing patience, Golkar deputy chairman Yorrys Raweyai, whom his adversaries refer to as a '€œthug'€, and his supporters, blockaded all doors around the office after their opponents resisted the takeover. The incident went viral in the mainstream and social media, but both camps gave no hint of regret or shame despite the embarrassing event.

About four months ago a newly installed House member from the United Development Party (PPP) overturned his table during a plenary session to vent his anger with the House leaders'€™ refusal to accept the party faction under Romahurmuziy, who was recognized by the government.

The unruly acts of our lawmakers only underline their lack of composure and preference of physical over mental exercise. Negotiations, as in the deliberation of bills and government policies, will require brain power on the part of the politicians, or else the decision-making process in the country will be determined by the use of muscle, as in an uncivilized society.

In fact, democratic principles enshrined in our state ideology and Constitution prescribe the use of deliberation to reach consensus. Historians have found that politicians in the young republic were frequently embroiled in heated debates, but acts of violence were never undertaken inside or outside the legislative building. Many were in fact good friends when it came to their personal lives.

Whether the use of violence that tarnishes the current House only indicates a political stalemate, which is temporary, or, worse, marks a setback of our hard-won democracy, will be answered in the coming weeks. Golkar, as the second largest party and the most experienced political organization, will not risk losing public trust through a persistent display of immaturity.

The longer it takes for the rival camps within the party to come to terms with each other the more remote its chance to consolidate itself for the upcoming concurrent regional elections scheduled for the end of the year. Other parties have even been gearing up for the 2019 elections, leaving a divided Golkar behind.

Without an imminent settlement, the Golkar conflict will put national legislation and agenda priorities that require the House'€™s consent at stake.