The Failure of Political Parties to Build Democracy
It is time for us to forcefully demand that political parties, old or new, change the rules of the game.
By
Bivitri Susanti
·4 minutes read
SALOMO TOBING
Bivitri Susanti
It is as if a bridge has been broken between us -- between citizens and their representatives in the legislature or executive. We come and vote every five years, but in the period between one election and another, there seems to be a gap between the citizens and their representatives. There have been so many criticisms about many laws, for example, which were actually rejected to an extraordinary degree, but were nevertheless passed, such as the revision of the Corruption Eradication Commission Law and the Job Creation Law. Similarly, a number of laws were produced in a very short time and without any participation, as if there is an assumption that the vote gives absolute power without the need to consult again with the people who are being represented.
Of course there are generalizations here. Not all representatives of the people are negligent with their obligations. Likewise, not all citizens vote in elections. However, this phenomenon must be examined more closely because the list of complaints about (un)policy and law has increased recently, for example with the increasingly stifling prices of goods and rampant corruption practices. However, on the other hand, the political elite cares only about electability issues, especially since the 2024 General Election is getting closer.
Where does our communication bridge really break? What we call the "political elite" is actually in a circle managed by formal political institutions called political parties. Election contestants are political parties, except for the Regional Representative Council. Political parties produce political actors for the House of Representatives (DPR), Regional Legislative Councils (DPRD), as well as the executive, namely the president, governors, regents and mayors. In our multi-party presidential system, the determination of the Cabinet will also take into account political parties. There are four general chairmen of political parties in the current Cabinet.
Furthermore, the election of all public positions is inextricably linked to the influence of political parties because most of the election processes must go through the DPR. Public positions here include commissions that should be independent, such as the Corruption Eradication Commission and the National Human Rights Commission, as well as the institutions that are supposed to manage the election of political parties themselves: the General Election Commission and the Election Supervisory Body. The judiciary is also implicated in this approach: the Supreme Court justices and the three judges of the Constitutional Court are also determined by the DPR. In practice, most candidates for public officials who have to go through a fit and proper test in the DPR must participate in political negotiations.
Untouched
The problem is that political parties have not been touched by reform efforts. Instead of being a political engine for constitutional democracy, political parties are seen only as vehicles for gaining public office. For most parties, the most important thing is to ensure electability; therefore, those who are strong in mass and funds become candidates for legislative members, not those with political capacity and integrity.
It is not surprising that we have recently been preoccupied by a commotion over the fact that convicts of corruption are allowed to participate in elections because the election law does allow it. The problem is that the election law is made by members of the DPR, who certainly do not want to change the provisions in their favor. These provisions have also been tested many times in the Constitutional Court, but are still considered constitutional.
Those who do not consider the importance of track records emphasize everyone's right to be elected. This argument can be accepted if the state is run by ethical actors, with a democratic political habitus. The problem is that political parties, which should serve as a filter in determining candidates for legislative members, prioritize the number of seats that can be won to expand their power. Track records and political capacity are not a determining category for candidates.
Talking about political-party reform usually ends in stalemate, because coercion through laws is almost impossible because it is the political parties that make the laws in the DPR. However, it is time for us to forcefully demand that political parties, old or new, change the rules of the game. Otherwise, our democracy will continue to be classed as merely a procedure for the political elite to take turns sitting in the seat of power.
BIVITRI SUSANTI, Lecturer at the Indonesia Jentera School of Law
