Share of Power

General elections or pemilu are only meaningful for the people at large if they help solve their problems, for example the problems of health, education, workers' rights, housing or sexual violence. Elections are also all-important if their results impact a constitutional overhaul or global policies, such as climate change or foreign relations.

In any country all these problems are too heavy for one political party to handle. Let alone for one politician. How redundant it is to discuss the electability of individual presidential candidates if they are not the strongest politicians from one of the strongest parties.

In order to achieve the best results from an election, a democratic society opens competition for the draft work programs of various political parties. It does not matter who will be head of government. The program and commitment of the winning party will continue with the same chairman or change due to illness, resignation or death.

In authoritarian countries there are major parties. However, there is no one who dares to put pressure on party rulers to fight for the interests of the wider community. All groups are required to worship the party chairperson. Even if there is a big program for the nation, the program is not the choice of the free people – not the best result of completing a number of versions of the work program for the nation's future.

Also read:

> Beware of Postponing Elections

> Prabowo, Ganjar, Anies Still Dominant

In a democratic country, the fate of political parties is highly dependent on the support of the people who are free to make political choices. In order to gain public support, parties are competing to develop work programs that answer the difficulties of people's lives. As an alternative, society needs a party that is willing and able to represent their interests. Reciprocity is mutual.

Regardless of the outcome later, election debates can educate the life of the nation if they are open, honest and based on facts.

Of course there is no guarantee that the party's work plan will materialize in a future which is full of uncertainty. But with a careful work plan, partly no small part, the work for the future is already done. Regardless of the outcome later, election debates can educate the life of the nation if they are open, honest and based on facts.

In this debate, what is thoroughly tested are the strengths and weaknesses of the vision and working strategy of the parties participating in the election; not a series of pearls of wisdom, not fighting slogans or grandiose promises, not a full-blown debate. On election day, the people vote for the nation's future plans offered by the parties participating in the election. Not just electing a popular politician.

Even though it is not perfect, political enthusiasm is similar to that which was present in Indonesia in the early post-independence years. That period may be foreign to today's younger generation. It is understandable that the period lasted a short time, like a flower that withers before it blooms. Besides, past history is not much discussed in school.

What can be expected from an election focused on individual presidential candidates? Tens of millions of supporters can lead popular figures to the palace through elections. After election day, the tens of millions of supporters do not enter the palace and lighten the president's work. If he is not the strongest person from the strongest party, he will be awkward in a palace that has long been surrounded by various other forces. If he does not want to be overthrown like Gus Dur. He must serve the interests of the various parties.

What can be expected from an election without contesting work programs that are in-depth, widespread and convincing from the election contestants? How is it possible for a political party to want to develop such a work program if it has never been demanded from them? For more than half a century there has been no contesting the visions and strategies of political parties. For more than half a century, people have not been accustomed to expecting their interests to be represented by political parties.

There are almost no political parties based on strong ideology and a worldwide humanitarian vision that is integrated with the interests of the nation. Empty of vision and ideology, political parties are all pragmatic, ready to form a coalition with anyone as long as they are given power. Individual politicians jump between parties.

What exists are many political parties, all suffering from a deficit in popular support.

There is no single party that is large enough to be supported by the public so that it is ready to become a democratic government without a coalition. There are no major parties playing the role of the opposition party. What exists are many political parties, all suffering from a deficit in popular support.

All parties are oriented towards the pinnacle of power, not lower society. When the country's leadership changes, they rush to adjust their attitudes for the sake of a share of power. The share of power comes from closeness to the authorities above. There is no incentive for the majority of parties to care about the interests of the wider community.

Comfortable with the status quo, all parties want to maintain the existing system. Only state officials have changed, like the turn of an exclusive arisan (regular social gathering) among the elite. Competition between parties does exist, however, this is not a competition to build people's trust. This is competition among elites in the distribution of power sharing.

In such a situation, it is natural that some people are ignorant of politics. Some sneer at the parties and the elections. Others are resigned to fate or to God's will, some miss the figure of Ratu Adil (Just Queen or King). The rest are instigated by identity politics.

Without contesting work programs, election debates easily get mired in matters of religion, ancestry, or narrow nationalism. The capital is sermon quotes, Pancasila slogans, emotions and prejudice, not reason, insight, and facts. Banning identity politics without paying attention to its causes is like prohibiting showing off a luxurious lifestyle without bringing up the cause of the worsening rich-poor inequality.

It only flares up when an elite is threatened to lose the election and then incites the masses to go wild.

Identity politics is a global phenomenon. Fortunately, in Indonesia, identity politics is different from a number of other countries. There are no big parties fanatical in fighting for identity politics at a fixed price. Here identity politics is just a fad of the season. It only flares up when an elite is threatened to lose the election and then incites the masses to go wild.

Here identity politics is a means of bluffing by some elites to increase their bargaining power in the coalition market. Remember the case of the last general election and local elections. After being given a position, even though they lost the election, they became calm and sweet.

Now, election season is heating up. Get ready.

KOMPAS/YUNIADHI AGUNG (MYE) 18-07-2018

Ariel Heryanto

ARIEL HERYANTO, Professor Emeritus from Monash University, Australia

(This article was translated by Hyginus Hardoyo).