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
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
No comments:
Post a Comment