The issue of political parties is not only a matter of internal reform within the existing parties, but the need for an overhaul of party rules in general.
By
Bivitri Susanti
·5 menit baca
SALOMO TOBING
Bivitri Susanti
A Kompas report (27/3/2023) that discusses the results of a Kompas R&D survey regarding the decline of (public) trust in institutions resulting from the reform movement requires us to rethink the role of political actors in democracy. Democracy is not a jargon, but a political practice, which is carried out by all, both formal and informal political actors. Therefore, discussing state institutions is linked to examining how politicians work.
Public trust in state institutions is indeed greatly influenced by their performance. However, do not forget state institutions are not entities that can make their own decisions in carrying out their duties and roles. They act based on institutional reasons that are highly dependent on political factors, such as: who are the individuals picked by political actors to occupy leadership positions and their relations with other state institutions. In fact, the birth and death of institutions is very dependent on the "permission" of the political parties. This is because political decisionmakers are politicians in the House of Representatives and the government through laws. Meanwhile, politicians in the House and the President, as well as most of the current ministers, are from political parties.
We remember how the KPK was "allowed" to be born through the KPK Law in 2002, which was preceded by the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR) Decree in 1999. When the KPK was deemed too effective in attacking politicians, the KPK was "terminated" through the revision of the KPK Law and the election of its commissioners in 2019. Likewise, the Constitutional Court was “permitted” to be born in 2002, but when it was considered too powerful and the number of laws that were overturned was deemed too many, the independence of judicial power began to be shaken up through replacement of the judges midterm. Moreover, this attack on the independence of the judicial power, which is actually illegal, will soon be made legal with the House's proposal for amendment of the Constitutional Court Law.
At this point, the 75th book by former Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Jimly Asshiddiqie, entitled New Oligarchy and Totalitarianism, which was launched last week, is relevant for discussion. The book provides a qualified scientific basis for the phenomenon of democratic decline, which has been frequently discussed recently. Using Sheldon S Wolin's (2008) framework on managed democracy, which is similar to illiberal democracy, Asshiddiqie provides the context of Indonesia's current situation, which shows the existence of a "new totalitarianism". The biggest contributor to this situation is formal political actors who are not balanced by political ethics in terms of conflicts of interest, political disputes before the public and their commitment to the rule of law principle.
The question is, how to develop ethics? Are ethics not personal, unless they are codified into an institutional code of ethics and implemented? In the meantime, the enforcement of an institutional code of ethics is often tainted by procedural issues and conflicts of interest. There must be practical efforts to make political ethics grow and work in our democracy. In the long run, we have to talk about education. However, in a shorter time, institutionally we must again highlight the role of political parties as the source of all formal political actors; in the House, government, regional heads and state institutions whose leaders are elected by the House.
Of course, we also need various laws that can limit power and the abuse of power, such as laws on the prohibition of conflicts of interest and stricter rules of the game regarding money politics. The problem is these various regulatory changes also require political parties because the power to form laws rests with the House and the President. You can be sure, most politicians are not willing to make regulations that will make things difficult for themselves.
The issue of political parties is not only a matter of internal reform within the existing parties, but the need for an overhaul of party rules in general. The barrier that halts new parties from entering or participating in the election must be evaluated. In fact, this wall made it difficult for organic parties to enter. Meanwhile, "buying and selling" of party entities often occurs. On the other hand, there are no rules of the game for internal democracy within political parties and obligations for regeneration and political education. As a result, our democracy always fails to grow new political players. And returning to the issue of political ethics, political parties more often than not provide instant vote-getter politicians or members who only carry out the orders of the political elite, who are rarely replaced democratically.
If this issue is kept silent, what will decrease is not only the level of public trust in the institutions surveyed by Kompas Research and Development, but also trust in democracy, which is controlled by a political elite with few ethics.
