T

hese days couldn’t be brighter for Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) matriarch Megawati Soekarnoputri.

Having been a symbol of resistance to the government during the New Order, the daughter of founding president Sukarno reaped the fruit of bending tradition to nominate a party member, Joko “Jokowi” Widodo, for the 2014 presidential election. She broke the country’s political praxis that usually puts up party chiefs, former military generals or businessmen as candidates for top executive posts.

Megawati now has her party at the center of power under the Jokowi administration. But there is a faint air of disquiet in the government and the public as she molds a new resistance movement with an emerging crop of star politicians that have garnered strong public support, through her theory of deparpolisasi (delegitimization of political parties).

The ruling party has been at loggerheads with incumbent Jakarta Governor Basuki “Ahok” Tjahaja Purnama, who is seeking to run for reelection. Ahok, who has gained popularity during his relatively short stint as governor, has formed a new political clout as an independent candidate and has refused to be nominated by the party.

Such a spat also occurred between the PDI-P and Jokowi when last year the party insisted on nominating Budi Gunawan, a former adjutant of Megawati during her presidency, as police chief, while Jokowi had somebody else in mind.

In a bid to revive the authority to formulate State Policy Guidelines (GBHN) to the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR), the PDI-P has garnered support from other political parties and regional representatives to start a limited amendment to the Constitution, raising concerns that it may lead to further control by legislative bodies over the government.

In a more mature democracy, a career politician and party member like Jokowi who made his way up from running local offices to the country’s top post is nothing new. It is even the norm, proof of a well-running political party as the main engine of democracy.

But in this young democracy where political parties have traditionally served as vehicles for political royals like Megawati or Nahdlatul Ulama’s Abdurrahman “Gus Dur” Wahid, or military generals like Soeharto and Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, the rise of ordinary party members, from the regions, has irked the political elite, who mostly built political leverage and fortunes through close ties with the center of power in Java.

The PDI-P’s maneuvers to control the democratically elected government and local administrations may obstruct the progress of democracy.

Megawati need look no farther than her father. Sukarno ruled the country for about two decades but had to face the belligerent nature of political parties in the first half of his tenure. The era witnessed the rise and fall of parliamentary government over the course of one to two years.

Sukarno’s failing grip on the political parties, which mostly only had a strong footing in Java but hardly brought prosperity to regions, culminated in the PRRI/Permesta rebellions in Sumatra and Sulawesi that led him to banning the Masyumi Party and the Indonesian Socialist Party (PSI) for their alleged roles in the uprisings.

Sukarno implemented further controls over political parties during Guided Democracy before he was forced to step down in a political crisis in 1965.

As political party leader and a government supporter, Megawati and the PDI-P are respectively holding the keys to whether democracy should advance or fall into another crisis due to a failure to compromise with the emerging political elites consisting of successful regional heads, be they party members or independents.

Equal and supporting partnerships should be developed between the government and the ruling party, as well as between local administrations and all political parties, in the name of the people’s welfare.

Without checks and balances, the executive branch of power can slip into authoritarianism. On the other hand, political party elites who are busy wrangling for power but do nothing to foster people’s welfare in regions should not receive a mandate from voters.

Regional autonomy and direct elections for regional heads allows the country to move one step ahead in resolving its past struggles to accommodate regional aspirations. A number of regional heads have shown good leadership in bringing prosperity to the people.

Political parties and the government should encourage the system to mature, instead of constantly disrupting it through legal and constitutional amendments.

There is a lot of work to be done, more children to feed and educate, more patients to cure, more roads to be built. It is belittling to credit the success of regional heads solely to their populism. They get many things done before they gain popularity as leaders.

Political parties should follow suit, doing the real work for the people, instead of only relying on royal families or businessmen as party chiefs.

It is an exaggeration to label party members who refuse to toe the party line as an indication of deparpolisasi or even anti-establishment politics. Such terms are divisive, if not too sophisticated, for the country’s young democracy. What is anti-establishment in a system in which the establishment, a strong and mature party system, hardly exists?

Unless, that is, we are satisfied to call the political royals and military generals, whose assets are an inheritance of past glory, and whose legacy is the repression of people, beacons of democracy.
__________________________________

The author is a staff writer at The Jakarta Post.