Veto
players, voters of contentious presidency
Arya Budi ; The writer, a postgraduate student at
Australian National University, Canberra, is an associate researcher of the
Poltracking Institute, Jakarta
|
JAKARTA
POST, 13 Maret 2015
Although President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo has apparently settled a
prolonged institutional conflict between the Corruption Eradication
Commission (KPK) and the National Police (Polri), Indonesian politics remains
unpredictable.
Jokowi’s decision to drop problematic police chief candidate
Comr. Gen. Budi Gunawan and suspend embattled KPK leaders Abraham Samad and
Bambang Widjojanto is only one public-driven policy during his five-month-old
government.
The public and the voters missed the Cabinet formation, as there
were some appointees deemed improper for Cabinet posts.
On the other side, Jokowi’s support has swung in uncertain
directions after the election due to some controversial policies related to
increasing fuel prices and basic needs. As a result, volunteerism, which
marked his nomination and campaign for the presidency, has now changed into
common public opinion related to particular issues like the KPK-Polri rift.
The KPK-Polri standoff proves the role of invisible hands in
affairs at the State Palace. Some believe that the main challenge facing
Jokowi is the opposition Red-and-White Coalition in the House of
Representatives.
The legislative challenge seems to make sense as experiences
show that a minority government frequently results in both policy
productivity and legislative deadlock, especially in the budgeting process
(William Riker 1983, 1988).
However, the Budi Gunawan case demonstrates the main challenges
stem from Jokowi’s own coalition, particularly the Indonesian Democratic
Party of Struggle (PDI-P).
The patronage link in each coalition member traps Jokowi in the
dilemma of complying with the party’s patrons that hold veto power over
policies, or following the public’s wishes. Public expectations should be
maintained as the only foundation for Jokowi to negotiate with those possess
vetoes.
Basically, the presidential system of government that Indonesia
adopts allows the President to appoint ministers and top public officials as
part of his or her prerogative.
However, presidential decisions are always derived from three
sources: public demands, which mostly increase popularity; a problem-solving
mechanism that requires expertise; and political errands in which political
figures ask the President what to do or not to do concerning public policy
and public positions.
The latter confirms the tug of war related to the Budi case and
has probably stained the dynamics of Jokowi’s presidency.
In short, there are three major political errands facing Jokowi
in the Polri nomination issue: the interference of party patrons, business
interests and conflicts among state institutions.
Jokowi resembles a product of electoral democracy. Though the
presidential nomination is rooted in the logic of patronage in the PDI-P and
other parties, the consideration to nominate Jokowi was strongly influenced
by public support.
That is how electoral democracy worked. Most Indonesian
pollsters found that only Jokowi could challenge Prabowo Subianto and win the
election as his electability rate far outstripped that of PDI-P patron
Megawati Soekarnoputri.
Like it or not, Jokowi’s candidacy stemmed from the popular
support that influenced Megawati Soekarnoputri as the single decision maker
within Jokowi’s party, the PDI-P. Nevertheless, the interference of veto
players affected the coalition government.
Compared with the government of former president Susilo Bambang
Yudhoyono, Jokowi’s coalition consists of very new parties.
The PDI-P and Hanura Party chose — or were not chosen — to be
part of the ruling coalition during Yudhoyono’s 10-year rule.
Meanwhile, the NasDem Party is a rookie in the elections. Only
the National Awakening Party (PKB) was experienced in governmental affairs.
These facts explain why the PDI-P, having been outside the government for 10
years, faces difficulties in adjusting to its new situation as the ruling
party. Some of its members continue to oppose government decisions, like
Rieke Diah Pitaloka and Effendi Simbolon, related to the fuel price hike.
The PDI-P was the ruling party in 2001-2004 with some policy
blunders.
Therefore, a lack of experience as the ruling coalition has
resulted in some “governmental mistakes” as in the case of intervening with
the internal rift plaguing the United Development Party (PPP) by PDI-P member
and Law and Human Rights Minister Yasonna H. Laoly; the controversial statement
of Coordinating Political, Legal & Security Affairs Minister Tedjo Edhi
Purdijatno, a NasDem member, on Budi Gunawan’s inauguration; and the
confusing bureaucratic policies issued by Administrative and Bureaucratic
Reform Minister Yuddy Chrisnandi of Hanura.
It should be underlined that the lineup of Jokowi’s Cabinet is
the product of party veto players, albeit partially.
Jokowi will continue to rely on support from his coalition and
at the same time maintain a relationship with the opposition Red-and-White
Coalition. It is unsurprising that almost all the 10 political parties in the
House will remain in the same power structure. Only two parties, the PPP and
the Golkar Party, have yet to settle their internal dispute.
The Budi Gunawan case has certainly taught a valuable lesson to
Jokowi: he can use support from the public and parties outside government as
a bargaining chip vis-à-vis the players within his own coalition. ●
|
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar