Sabtu, 14 Maret 2015

Veto players, voters of contentious presidency

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