The dilution of the major political coalition

The Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) does not cease to amaze - or perhaps shock - the public. This time, through a statement issued by one of its leaders, PKS voiced its concerns over the fact that Jusuf Kalla was closing the gap with Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) with regard to popularity. This viewpoint was based on the results of the party's internal survey. The statement was come as a warning so that necessary measures could be made to counter the trend, accordingly.
The survey results implied that Islam was still an important factor in the presidential race - even though many Islamic parties suffered substantial losses in the parliamentary elections. According to the PKS survey, it appeared that the jilbab (Muslim head covering for women) issue served as the principal cause of Jusuf Kalla-Wiranto's increase in popularity.
Unlike the wives of Yudhoyono and Boediono, Kalla's and Wiranto's spouses wear the jilbab. This has attracted more and more party constituents, especially those at the grassroots level, which may eventually define their voting preferences. Should this religious sentiment persist, Yudhoyono's presidential candidacy could be in jeopardy, the PKS says.
Had the PKS not been in SBY-Boediono's camp, or had the party been in a neutral position, this would be seen as only a poll report. Unfortunately, the PKS is in a political partnership with the Democratic Party (PD), the party of SBY. In fact, the PKS is the largest coalition partner supporting Yudhoyono's bid for the presidency.
Disclosing the results of the survey publicly, and in a less favorable tone, has stirred speculation with regard to the PKS' motive. The fact that the PKS had lodged a couple of complaints previously, including Yudhoyono's choice of Boediono as running mate, such state-ments would only be perceived further attempts to bargain for more concessions.
Though one can generally question the ethical dimension of the issue, bargaining for more concessions is a common practice in politics. What is not so common is the PKS assertion that while the top brass of the party leadership remains supportive of Yudhoyono, there is no guarantee that its grassroots members will follow suit.
From the perspective of the Democratic Party's grand scale coalition, with around 23 political parties, the PKS maneuver reflects the not-so-assured nature of the partnership. This only confirms the ongoing perception that the coalition of such grandeur is like an amalgamation of buses with drivers but no passengers.
The PKS - and any other coalition partners for that matter - cannot be held entirely to blame. In a state that adopts a presidential system of government, a political coalition is quite unheard of.
A political coalition is only common in a parliamentarian system of government. Even so, it is limited to elite partnership to form a government with decent support in the parliament.
The Democratic Party did not actually need to form a coalition at this point, when the primary concern is to nominate a presidential and vice presidential candidate.
Their electoral gain was more than enough to make Yudhoyono and Boediono become their candidates without the help of any other parties. The support of other parties would only be needed when Yudhoyono is ready to form a government.
Of course, this is not something the Democratic Party did not know. Perhaps the need to form a coalition of this magnitude (involving 23 parties) was driven by the need to psychologically boost their political standing, as well as to court their support - their constituents in particular - to win the presidential race.
There is a certain logic to such a viewpoint. Yet, the Democratic Party failed to realize -or did not want to know - the fact that party constituents do not have any obligation whatsoever to share the same voting preference as their leaders. In fact, even the rank and file of any given political party may have different political aspirations.
Should this be the case, the Democratic Party is actually facing a serious dilution of its coalition. The fact that each party involved in the coalition is aiming to get a better share of power or political concession - including certain Cabinet posts and the vice presidential position - as such, would only complicate the matter.

Tug of war between political parties and civil society

Never before in Indonesia’s modern political history have political parties been as attractive as they now are. They seem to have the same appeal that the bureaucracy had during Soeharto’s administration. At that time most educated people who had had the luxury of attending university — either at home or abroad — aspired to have a position in the government’s bureaucracy as their first option.
Now that political gravity has shifted from the executive body to the legislature, people have changed their minds. Members of parliament lead a good life on a very handsome income.
They also have a final say on many things — important and not so important, from the electability of presidential candidates to pornography legislation. A striking change of habit has occurred in the House: Its members have gone from saying nothing during the New Order to saying something about everything regardless of whether or not they really have something to say.
Because of that, political parties not only appear to be a breeding ground for would-be members of parliament, but also are perceived even more as a strategic stepping stone by which to jump to a legislative position. Businesspeople, professionals, academics, journalists and artists — all drift into political parties, though many of them do this just before legislative elections.
It is interesting to note that not all of them are party members who have risen from within the party ranks and then at a certain point in time are considered mature and experienced enough to assume political responsibility. Rather, they have aspired to a legislative position in the first place and then looked around for a political party to be their vehicle.
One wonders whether or not these people from outside are able to meet the minimum requirements to become legislators. If they do not have political training and experience, are not familiar with political problems, are short of political skills and know-how, how can they assume such an important role and such a big responsibility as that of representatives and spokespersons for their constituents?
Our concern is not whether the candidates recruited from outside the political parties are good enough or not, but rather what political parties do to generate human resources for political work. In this case, it seems, civil society is expected to educate people to become politically conscious individuals, who hopefully are committed to democratic values and are well equipped with the basic knowledge and skills that will enable them to embark upon a political career. Once they are ready, they can be recruited by political parties into political parties.
This seems to be the main reason why a number of civil society activists believe they can overstep political parties in the production and distribution of political human resources. The idea of nominating independent candidates during the executive election can be understood against this background.
People do not understand that political parties see themselves as a place where young citizens are exposed to the political world. Aristotle from ancient Greece still reminds us that no citizen can be mature enough unless he or she is actively involved in political affairs.
Analogically speaking, political parties assume the role of go-between in the transaction between the state and civil society. On the one hand, they enable the people to have access to and participation in state power by virtue of having their representatives speak on their behalf in negotiations with the state.
On the other hand, political parties become an institution that mediates between the interest of the people and that of the state. Legislation is a process whereby the interests of both sides are taken into account and regulated by force of law.
Needless to say that in such a negotiation there is always a sort of tug of war between the state and civil society. During the New Order administration the members of parliament did nothing but just approve and legalize whatever policy the executive body decided upon.
Ever since political reform in 1998, parliament has done its best to liberate itself from executive domination and has tried to become an independent body with its own autonomy and authority. In the meantime people expect that the change of habit and attitude within the parliament means its members will side more with civil society and speak out for civil rights as a constitutive element of democracy.
As it has turned out, expectations have not been met despite the fact that the parliament now has much more power than it ever did before. An unexpected situation has occurred: The parliament is liberated from executive domination but at the same time it has abandoned the civil society it represents. It has become a body preoccupied with itself and with the interests of its members.
It will take some time for the members of parliament to realize that the votes they get from civil society are not merely given to guarantee their victory in political competitions. More than that, the votes are a political deposit that people put in, from which they will require a corresponding interest that politicians will have to pay