|
Can Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono save the beleaguered
Democratic Party? The question follows Yudhoyono’s takeover of power from
embattled party chairman Anas Urbaningrum. Under the pretext of weeding out
corrupt members, Yudhoyono has taken a tough measure considered
undemocratic.
The move to
save the Democratic Party amounts to the centralization of power in the
hands of Yudhoyono, the party’s co-founder and chief patron. This reminds
us of the so-called Mataraman style of political settlement.
Yudhoyono is
acting like the old kings of the Javanese kingdom of Mataram, who used
force to ensure that everyone heeded their words. Anas is playing his part
as a defiant prince.
What is
happening to the ruling party contradicts the principle of democracy,
especially when it comes to the influential role of the board of patrons
and the general assembly, both of which are headed by Yudhoyono.
What is the
benefit of the institutions on the party’s quality of democracy? Almost
nothing. The institutions, which oversee the party executives, were formed
only to keep Yudhoyono’s political clout over the party.
In fact,
Yudhoyono was a co-founder and remains a central figure of the Democratic
Party. But, under the modern paradigm, he is not the owner of the party.
While Yudhoyono can bind the party into a solid organization, he must
navigate it in a democratic way.
That’s one
thing. The other thing is that Yudhoyono’s position as President has come
under the spotlight. By reining in the party he risks degrading his own reputation
into that of a partisan politician, rather than a statesman. Although the
president of Indonesia must be nominated by a political party or coalition
of parties; ethically, he or she must keep a clear distance from political
parties.
It is not appropriate
for Yudhoyono to take care of his party in such a heavy handed way. While
he has not broken any law, it would very much make sense if people outside
the Democratic Party felt discriminated against.
Now the public
has witnessed Yudhoyono’s model for political settlements. It is close to
the militaristic style of governance, which can work effectively if there
is an absence of resistance. Stability is pushed down from the top.
The rescue
measures taken by Yudhoyono, however, do not automatically guarantee a
bright future for the party. Moreover, if anti-Anas sentiment is rife
within the party, Yudhoyono will have wasted a vast amount of political
capital.
The model will
be rendered ineffective if Yudhoyono faces fierce resistance from disappointed
party members. Likewise, this political solution will be doomed to failure
if the public does not respond to it positively. Please keep in mind that
the Yudhoyono administration is in the final year of office and
extraordinary accomplishments can hardly be found.
The decline of
the Democratic Party’s electability has occurred not only because of its
members’ involvement in various corruption cases, but also due to
psychological factors as Yudhoyono enters the end of his term.
With regard to
Anas, Yudhoyono has to handle the issue with extra care because the
policies that he has initiated have fueled public criticism. The impression
that Anas has been systematically sidelined will disadvantage Yudhoyono as
a symbol of democracy. The way he has treated Anas resembles the “abuse”
against him in 2004 that ironically helped his political career skyrocket.
Now Anas is being persecuted politically, but no one knows if his political
career will rise in the future.
Although
frequently named in the Hambalang graft scandal, Anas has not, at least
until today, been named a suspect. The Corruption Eradication Commission
(KPK) will certainly address the case very carefully, not only because it
deals with the Democratic Party elites, but also because of possible political
intervention and pressures. For the sake of its integrity, the commission
needs support from all parties, including the Democrats, to act
independently rather than serving the interests of a certain political
force. The commission
must be given freedom to investigate all graft cases, including the
high-profile Bank Century bailout.
Yudhoyono has
claimed that his party fights corruption and that the public needs
consistency between words and actions. The public will only trust him if he
is open and responsive to the graft allegations targeting his party, inner
circle and family. The President is not above the law anyway and has to set
a good example of compliance with the law.
The ongoing
crisis plaguing the ruling Democratic Party only shows that we lack a
strong modern political party that has institutionalized democracy. Rather
than displaying the characteristics of a modern party, the Democratic Party
under Yudhoyono is no more than traditional, patronage parties the country
has inherited from the past. ●
|
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar