New
administration, same old story?
Dwi Atmanta ; A
staff writer at The Jakarta Post
|
JAKARTA
POST, 13 April 2014
If he
was still alive, the smiling Gen. Soeharto might have greeted Indonesian
voters, who on Wednesday cast their ballots in the fourth legislative
election since the end of his New Order regime, in his native Javanese, “Piye
kabare? Enak jamanku to?” (How are you? It was better in my time, wasn’t
it?).
The
cynical remarks, which are part of a picture of the former dictator that has
been circulating around the country since last year, will pose a challenge to
Indonesian democracy as the legislative election on Wednesday is very likely
to plunge the nation into yet another coalition trap. The noisy, prolonged,
energy-sapping and, in fact, unnecessary war of words among politicians will
highlight decision-making at the House of Representatives in news media for
the coming five years.
Instead
of focusing on their legislative roles, in which they have never excelled,
the politicians will allocate much of their work hours to political moves,
intrigue and plots to indulge their narcissistic instincts — only to show
they are doing something, even if it is not really what their constituents
need. There could be another Centurygate — Part 1 and Part 2 — interpellation
motions or even an impeachment petition for the public to watch with fatigue.
The
maneuverings will take a break at certain times, with one or two politicians
being caught red-handed accepting bribes, found guilty in court and dismissed
without feeling humiliated, let alone guilty, because they embezzled state
money to help their party cover its operational costs.
Following
the 2014 election, if nothing changes in the orchestra of Indonesian politics
except for the conductor, it will have been the choice of the voters who on
April 9 cast their ballots at 550,000 polling stations across the country.
With only 12 parties contesting, down from 38 parties five years ago, the
next House will see 10 parties fill its 560 legislative seats, up from nine
following the 2009 election.
As no
single party will play a dominant role, the House looks set to emulate the
existing pattern that splits the legislative body into pro-government and
opposition camps — no matter who wins the presidency — for the 2014-2019
term. For another five years, protracted bickering over unpopular government
policies will distract the House from its legislative agenda and other
pressing issues facing the country such as infrastructure, energy insecurity,
climate change-related disasters and the impending ASEAN free market.
That is
the price this nation has to pay for forcing Soeharto to step down in May
1998 and choosing democracy as the new vehicle to reach the common goals of
prosperity and justice laid out by the founding fathers.
The New
Order under Soeharto was a period when political stability was non-negotiable
and hence translated into a multi-party system that was singlehandedly
controlled by the ruling party, the Golkar Party. Golkar won the elections
held between 1971 and 1997 by landslides — often with a margin that was
double the votes of the two opposition parties combined — to ensure
Soeharto’s reelection and an effective government.
For more
than three decades, Indonesian politics was relatively quiet or, borrowing
the political elite’s overused term, “conducive”, thanks to the might of
Golkar, the majority faction in the House. The stability of the legislative
body was further kept intact due to constant support from the armed forces
faction.
But
Soeharto wanted more, as he coined the term “round democracy”, which referred
to unanimous decisions, compared to “oval democracy”, in strategic issues
like the selection of the vice president.
It was
democracy sans opposition that allowed the government to win the House’s
approval of any policy, unhindered. On the other hand, it was the absence of
the checks-and-balances mechanism that left corruption rife, particularly in
the executive branch of power.
For
better or worse, such an effective government fit the presidential system as
mandated by the Constitution. A series of constitutional amendments that
followed the fall of Soeharto in 1998 swung the pendulum of power from the
executive to the legislative branch.
While
political reforms put an end to authoritarianism by preventing the president
from accumulating power and empowering the legislative body through a
checks-and-balances mechanism, the overhaul itself was perhaps the rotten
apple of Indonesian democracy. For over 15 years, Indonesia has been
practicing a legislative system of government, reminiscent of the chaotic
constitutional democracy back in 1955-1959.
A grand
coalition comprising all of the parties that secured House seats was formed
in 1999 to help the government of Abdurrahman Wahid work effectively, but it
did not guarantee a stable government. The powerful House impeached the
president in 2001, allowing then vice president Megawati Soekarnoputri to
take over.
Another
grand coalition was established in 2004, given the fact that the ruling party
of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, the Democratic Party, was inferior in
the House. Yudhoyono should thank his former vice president Jusuf Kalla, who
was also Golkar chairman, for managing the coalition to fend off the
opposition’s challenge.
Despite
the fact that Yudhoyono’s Democratic Party won the 2009 legislative election,
and he himself was reelected president and secured support from a coalition
that controlled the House, he was stretched to the limit to govern
effectively. His weakened coalition failed to stop a House investigation into
the suspicious Bank Century bailout, foiled a House probe into tax mafia
practices and won the House’s approval to raise fuel prices, all in
nerve-wracking votes that demonstrated the vulnerability of the government to
political ploys.
Nevertheless,
the political dynamics that marked the three administrations after the New
Order, and particularly the second term of Yudhoyono, are worth learning —
albeit not because they set a good example but because they show the flaws of
our democracy. For decades, the old regime hid the virtue of democracy. ●
|
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar