Lately, there is a growing phenomenon in Indonesia in which young artists turn to politicians. Just to name e few, there are three Indonesian artists who managed to get their seats in parliament in Indonesian General Election 2009.
To be frank, the list of legislative candidates from Indonesian political in the 2014 General Election was filled with 51 celebrities, including models, singers and TV-personalities and of course the relatives of the incumbents. But not only in legislative, some celebrities also tried to become the head regions. Since they have been popular before, they can be elected in the campaign more easily than most politicians. The relatives of the incumbents might enjoy some privileges that makes their election much easier. This fact is quite interesting because it raises the pros and the cons among people. Some are worried and question the motives behind their candidacy to be politicians. They ask whether those kinds of people have the capability, experience and merit rather than fame and money? Do they really want to ‘devote themselves’ to people or simply want to gain more popularity? Do the political parties choose them due to their capacity or them they gain more votes easily? Some are concerned about the negative impacts of this trend on the government. Do the political parties need those celebrities to support their political existence? While some people say that presence of celebrities in politics is to guarantee that that every citizen has the freedom of association and assembly, to choose the representative and be chosen as representative. Some experts mention three reasons for this phenomenon in Indonesian politics: weak implementation of the rule of law, ‘idol syndrome’ or personalistic voting behavior and weak party institutionalisation.
The first reason for this trend is the weak application of the rule of law, in this case, means the continuous changing of Indonesian electoral law based on the interests of politicians. The changing of election law in every election makes the election itself uncertain. The Election Commission said in the post-reform era from the elections of 1999, 2004, 2009, until 2014, there are contexts demanding the change of election laws. In the 1999 elections, there were great demands to change the electoral law because it does not give people the freedom to establish political parties. In 2002-2003 there was an amendment of the constitution that change the design and structure of politics in Indonesia. A direct election is possible since 2004 after the formation of regional representative. However, politicians make use of the weak implementation of the rule of law for their own political interests.
The second reason for this trend is the changing voting behaviour of the Indonesian electorate from the politicization of religious and cultural divisions into a more personality-based model of politics. This trend is so-called ‘idol syndrome’. This explains why there are many celebrities, TV personalities and the relatives or members of political dynasties who have more opportunity to be elected due to some privileges they have. Unlike real politicians who crawl their career from the bottom to the top, these celebrities enjoy a high level of popularity since they are more exposed by the media. They can suddenly be the members of parliament or head regions without having any political experience. Low educated voters, especially in rural areas "choose" those celebrities because of "likes" and not because of their background. If he is a musician, the voters might have picked him because of the song, or appearance. Ordinary voters don’t have long-term consideration just because of their low educational background. Thus, the political parties make use of their weaknesses. The political parties are supposed to be responsible for providing political education and awareness and should not take advantage of the foolishness of their voters.
The third reason that answer this problem is the core problem that lies in Indonesia’s political parties. Most political parties have the priority to win the elections and fund party operations instead of establishing fair and open selection and promotion mechanisms. An example of this can be seen when the parliamentary members “have to speed fast” to make laws to legitimize their allocation funds. Ideally, the deputies have to consult with the people to absorb their aspirations. People are asking whether the Assembly really represent people or not and whether what is so called as ‘aspiration fund’ only a trick to preserve their position in the Assembly.
In short, Indonesian political parties should not only resort to short-term solutions to maintain their power. They should not make use of the low educated voters to choose their candidates from among the celebrities who have no track record of competence or even commitment. This will only worsen the quality of Indonesia’s parliament, which will increasingly consist of media personalities who are inefficient representatives. They should also be open for their recruitment to the public and transparent during the process of selection. The parties should also publish the background of every candidate so that people can choose them based on their capabilities and competence, not based on their looks or popularity. So, people will not ask whether the political parties really work for people not for their own interest or for a handful of people.
By Anonymous
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar