It sounds counterintuitive, but the fact that Jokowi will most likely have to face a hostile parliament filled with a real opposing coalition is actually a good development for Indonesian politics and democracy because it will foster more responsible political behaviour.
There has been no real opposition in the parliament in recent years as broad ruling coalitions were built which took in almost all the significant political parties in parliament. During the second term of Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s presidency, the only parties that did not join the ruling coalition were PDI-P, Hanura and Gerindra, together holding only 24.81 per cent of seats in the parliament.
Yet when Yudhoyono tried to increase the fuel price back in 2012, two political parties in the ruling coalition that adamantly opposed the fuel price increase — the Prosperity and Justice Party and Golkar — switched to the opposition, causing havoc in the government.
Not surprisingly, this kind of arrangement fosters irresponsible political behaviour, where political parties can have their cake and eat it too: enjoying all the perks and benefits of being in a governing coalition, but at the same time, escaping the fallout from unpopular yet necessary policies. This made the government hesitant to implement such policies, including cutting fuel subsidies, since nobody could be sure whether the government had enough votes in parliament to pass such legislation — unless the government was willing to grant significant concessions.
Part of the blame for this dysfunctional system should be put squarely on Yudhoyono’s shoulders. As president he was unwilling to act decisively to expel these parties, and the very idea of principled opposition in Indonesia seemed alien to the government — parties would rather behave opportunistically than truly throw their support behind either the ruling coalition or opposition.
In this sense, the Red and White coalition is actually good news for Indonesian democracy. If the coalition acts decisively, they could force the Jokowi administration to rule competently and thus develop a culture of responsible democracy in Indonesia. Policies would be debated and dissected, rather than rushed through the parliament — an abuse of process which can lead to many bad laws, such as the notorious Law on Information and Electronic Transaction which was often used to criminalise critics.
But if the opposition only oppose Jokowi’s policies for the sake of opposition, then Jokowi could find his proposed laws blocked needlessly. Such unprincipled opposition would make it much more difficult for Jokowi to implement much needed reforms, such as cutting red tape, cleaning up corruption and waste, and getting rid of incompetent bureaucrats. It would be disastrous for Indonesian democracy, as the people, sick of the political gridlock, would start to question whether democracy was really beneficial.
The law abolishing direct local elections was a case in point. The goal was simple: to allow the opposition bloc to solidify their gains by ensuring that only people loyal to their bloc are nominated. The law, in essence, strengthens the power of political parties vis-à-vis regional executives, making these executives responsible only to the political parties that nominated them. Any party defecting from the coalition would see its nominees blocked by members of its former coalition.
On 17 October, there was a glimmer of hope as suddenly, after a visit from Jokowi, Prabowo Subianto, the de facto leader of Red and White coalition, signalled his desire to work with Jokowi to maintain a stable government. There is hope that it might now be possible for Indonesia to have a responsible opposition in parliament.
Hopefully it will not have been a false dawn.
Yohanes Sulaiman is a writer, analyst and lecturer at the Indonesian National Defense University.
What we are likely to see, rather than the enactment of this author’s optimistic scenario, is that the Prabowo camp will scrutinise proposed legislation in the light of purportedly nationalist or ‘pro-people’ (pro-rakyat) criteria.
This would be in tune with the stance Prabowo adopted during the presidential election campaign.
DPR deputy speaker Fahri Hamzah has for example just warned Jokowi that he must increase compensation for ‘the poor’, beyond the Kartu Indonesia Sehat and Kartu Indonesia Pintar, if his government insists on reducing fuel subsidies. There have been conflicting signals about whether Jokowi will shortly reduce these or not, suggesting possible alarm about the possible public reaction.
Whatever Prabowo may have said on 17 October, ironically the date of what amounted to an attempted coup against parliament decades ago, needs to weighed against the earlier warning of his brother Hashim that the opposition would block personnel appointments Jokowi wanted to make that required DPR. Though later lamely attributed to misrepresentation in the media, Hashim’s statement may provide a clearer view of government-opposition relations in the future.
Ken
Thank you for your reply.
I agree that the indications, so far, are not that encouraging, especially in the light of the dispute between the KMP and the KIH in the past several days.
The parliament might use the populist cudgel to attack the government’s policies regardless of its merit. That, in turn, as you observe, might drive the government into paralysis, unwilling to make the difficult and yet necessary choices.
Still, from my conversations and observations, it looks like the government remains optimistic that it could get its agenda done and should the government actually show some results in the next couple of months, I think it will be more and more difficult for the parliament to keep being obstructionist.
Of course, that’s an optimistic scenario. But at this point, I am still willing to bank on giving them a chance.
Sdr Yohanes,
I am sure Jokowi’s people are confident. It seems to me that Jokowi is a perennially optimistic man who, when confronted with a problem, is likely to say ‘nggak ada apa2’. This is not, however, a recipe for success.
Refusing to offer the Prabowo camp any cabinet seats (with the exception of PPP) while accepting so many dubious recommendations from Megawati, which I would describe as ‘internal transactional politics’, suggests flawed tactical judgement. And if it is true that he blocked Eva Sundari’s appointment because of a BIN veto, one should have even more concerns about his shrewdness.
Hi Ken:
I agree that Jokowi and his people are overtly optimistic and that might, in the end, prove to be disastrous.
At the same time, I disagree with your recommendation of he should have given seats to Prabowo’s camp — unless Prabowo’s coalition is truly committed to become part of governing coalition and ditch the opposition.
As I argued in my essay, by blurring the opposition and government, you will end up having a lot of bad law and ineffective policies. Plus, it will add up to voters’ skepticism to democracy.
And yes, I agree that Megawati’s meddling is not helpful, but basically Jokowi has to accommodate her, lest he’d be backstabbed by his own party — and on Eva Sundari’s appointment, another source suggested that she didn’t receive Megawati’s blessings. So, you might like to figure which one is the correct version.
Without the good will handshake, it was symbolic then that the fight for power is not over. All maneuvers are a precursor to dethrone rather than to be a responsible opposition.
Respite can come with victory in the next legislative election, if Indonesia can wait that long, and notwithstanding a possible impeachment before that.
It is a lesser evil now, to garner the support of one big party in order to see meaningful success in the necessary policy implementations that can will truly help Indonesia.
Thank you for your comment.
Well by being a true opposition bloc and a true governing bloc, voters (hopefully) could see which one is doing a better job and then will deliver a sound beating to those who don’t meet the expectation.
Though, it also depends on how well they will run the next campaign.