 |
Elections in Indonesia: Stability, Conflict and Change
Dr Stephen Sherlock
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Group
June 1997
Elections for the Indonesian parliament on 29 May 1997 produced the
predicted overwhelming victory for the officially-sponsored Golkar party,
which received over 74 per cent of votes cast, an increase from the 68
per cent it won in the elections of 1992. The Muslim-oriented United Development
Party (PPP) also substantially increased its vote from 17 per cent in
1992 to nearly 23 per cent in 1997. The Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI)
was electorally decimated, following a split caused by government intervention
to overturn the previous leadership headed by Megawati Sukarnoputri, daughter
of Indonesia's first President, Sukarno. PDI's vote fell from 15 per cent
in 1992 to little more than 3 per cent in 1997.
This note outlines the role of Indonesia's parliament and examines the
implications of the election results for Indonesia's increasingly uncertain
political future. For a fuller analysis of longer-term trends, this note
should be read in conjunction with another paper by the author, The
Politics of Change in Indonesia: Challenges for Australia, Current
Issues Brief No. 3, 1996-97.
Elections and Parliament in Indonesia
Since the coup and violent upheavals of 1965, Indonesia has been ruled
by President Suharto's 'New Order' regime which has been based heavily
on the power of the military. Elections in Indonesia are not designed
to decide the formation of governments, but to provide an outlet for popular
desire for political participation and to serve as a reaffirmation of
the legitimacy of the government.(1) The immediate function of the five-yearly
poll is to elect 425 members of the 500-member parliament, the Dewan Perwakilan
Rakyat or House of Representatives (DPR). The other 75 members are officers
of the military nominated by the President.
The DPR's role as a legislative body is to approve statutes, most of
which originate from executive government led by the President. Individual
members of the DPR may submit draft bills but they are subject to Presidential
veto. In keeping with musyawarah (consensus), which the government
says is a traditional Indonesian way of non-adversarial decision making,
legislation in the DPR is approved unanimously rather than by voting.
Since the overwhelming majority of DPR members are government-sponsored,
this tradition is unlikely to be challenged.
The DPR also forms half of the People's Consultative Council (MPR) whose
role is to elect the President. The other half of the MPR is composed
of members of the regional assemblies, the Army and various functional
groups sponsored by the government. President Suharto has been the sole
nominee for the position since 1965.
'Free and Fair' Elections?
A number of independent organisations, both inside and outside Indonesia,
have criticised the conduct of the recent elections, alleging that there
was intimidation of non-Golkar candidates and supporters and multiple
voting by Golkar supporters and unregistered voters.
While such reports suggest there were individual instances of attempted
vote-rigging, the fact that the vote for the 'opposition' parties changed
so dramatically from the last election can be seen as evidence that most
people were able to cast their vote freely and the outcome was not predetermined.
Former PDI supporters appear to have decided that the government-initiated
forcible takeover of the PDI by opponents of Megawati Sukarnoputri had
turned the party into a puppet of government. Most former PDI supporters
either boycotted the vote or cast their ballots in favour of Golkar or
the PPP. The co-operation between some PPP and Megawati supporters during
the campaign led some of the PDI vote to go to the PPP, but Christian
and secular-minded electors may well have opted for Golkar rather than
support a party advocating a greater political role for Islam.
The more serious shortcomings of Indonesian elections are the structured
advantages given to Golkar which induce electors to support it. All government
employees, for example, are required both to vote for and campaign in
favour of Golkar. The PPP and PDI are restricted in the time and extent
to which they can campaign, while Golkar can call upon state resources
for its campaign and has the vote-buying advantages of access to official
largesse.
The electoral system is becoming a foreign relations issue for the Indonesian
Government, with the US State Department calling for an investigation
into allegations of irregularities and criticising the lack of opportunity
for a change of government by democratic means.
Implications of the 1997 Elections
The results of these elections are an indication of major changes occurring
in Indonesian politics. DPR elections have traditionally been intended
to emphasise stability and continuity, with the predicability of a Golkar
majority balanced against a degree of inclusion for the leaders of Islamic
and non-Islamic/secular forces. The Government's undermining of the PDI,
however, has upset much of this manipulated but largely successful balance
and strengthened the position of the PPP and, by implication, the Islamist
groups which support it. Many PPP leaders may now be emboldened to attempt
a more vigorous mobilisation of the growing Islamic sentiment in Indonesian
society. On the other hand, Megawati supporters are likely to feel increasingly
alienated from the political status quo.
While none of these developments has the capacity to threaten the position
of President Suharto, they underline increasing uncertainty about how
the Indonesian state will cope with the transition to a post-Suharto era.
The violence which marked the election campaign (around 250 deaths, a
great increase over 1992) was an indication of the growing levels of popular
dissatisfaction with existing political arrangements. President Suharto's
'New Order' has prided itself on a record of impressive economic achievements
since the 1970s, but economic development has brought major changes to
Indonesian society and new restiveness about government restrictions on
political participation and civil liberties. President Suharto appears
to remain personally popular, but there is growing resentment about corruption
and nepotism, particularly the favouritism shown towards members of Suharto's
family in both business and politics. The 'New Order' has depended heavily
on President Suharto's personalised rule and the tight control over political
life has not allowed for the growth of a new generation of leaders with
the experience or popular support and legitimacy to take over after Suharto's
death or retirement. Suharto shows little sign of being willing to develop
institutions appropriate for an increasingly sophisticated society and
economy or to deal with growing pressures for political reform.
| Indonesian Political Parties
Three parties only are permitted to campaign in parliamentary
elections. Any other parties operate illegally.
Golkar (Joint Secretariat of Functional Groups). Originated
in 1964 as a co-ordinating body of anti-communist elements in the
Army, trade unions, peasant and other organisations. Brought under
direct government control in 1968. In the 1971 elections, government-sponsored
candidates contested under the Golkar name and it has since become
the officially-supported party. Golkar is often said to be more
the political arm of the bureaucracy than a political party.
Partai Persatuan Pembangunan (PPP) (United Development Party)
Formed in 1973 as a government-enforced merger of four Islamic
parties. The PPP is strongest in regions where Islam is most influential,
such as Aceh in Sumatra and in east and central Java. Its four constituent
elements are poorly fused and the party is highly factionalised.
Partai Demokrasi Indonesia (PDI) (Indonesian Democratic Party)
Formed in 1973 in the same circumstances as the PPP, as a merger
of five secular-oriented and Christian parties. The PDI sees itself
as the heir to the secular nationalist politics championed by Sukarno.
Covert and overt government intervention in its affairs is a longstanding
feature of its existence.
|
- Douglas Ramage, Politics in Indonesia: Democracy, Islam and the
Ideology of Tolerance, London, 1995.
|
 |
