Ties between President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and his coalition partners have been renewed since the second round of the 2009 presidential election. Nothing has changed in the patterns of this relationship, which is marked with political maneuvering of two-legged political parties and transactional politics between Yudhoyono and the coalition partners.
The fact is quite clear, at the end of the first year, the government was busied with the political drama revolving around the Bank Century scandal.
The tough attitude of the coalition partners (especially the Golkar Party) in the Century case, Finance Minister Sri Mulyani’s resignation and the establishment of the Coalition Joint Secretariat with Golkar boss Aburizal Bakrie named the executive chairman are some explicit examples of political bargaining and bartering within the coalition.
At the beginning of the second term of Yudhoyono’s administration, we witnessed another political drama evolving around tax mafia cases involving former tax official Gayus H. Tambunan, but then the implication of three companies linked to the Bakrie family.
The legal process of this case has been filled with the smell of politics, reflecting a pattern of transactional relationships present within the coalition.
The pattern of transactional relationships within the coalition — through the Coalition Joint Secretariat — has become stronger as members of the coalition are also being held hostage by some legal cases.
The Democratic Party, since the beginning of the Yudhoyono-Boediono government, has been held hostage by the Century Bank case. The Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) was also held hostage by a fictitious letter of credit case implicating its lawmaker Muhammad Misbakhun.
In the case of Bank Century, Yudhoyono and the Democrats were cornered by his own coalition partners — namely the Golkar Party and the PKS. Therefore, it is no surprise that the public has associated the Misbakhun case as an attempt by the Democrats to silence and hold PKS hostage. The reason for this is that Misbakhun is a PKS politician who was one of the initiators of the House of Representatives’ inquiry into the Bank Century bailout.
The smell of political intervention in the case was more obvious when President Yudhoyono highlighted the light sentence — one year in prison, which was far less than the eight years sought by prosecutors — for Misbakhun.
Most recently, the PKS criticized the leadership and mechanisms within the Coalition Joint Secretariat, which is dominated the Democratic Party and Golkar. The PKS also coined the idea to build a middle political power by inviting the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) to discuss a possible coalition in the 2014 presidential election.
In addition to coalition partners, opposition force PDI-P has also been cornered by several legal cases, as some of its politicians have been named suspects in the bribery case in the election of former Bank Indonesia senior deputy governor Miranda Goeltom.
This case has to some extent muted the PDI-P, preventing it from voicing too much criticism of the government.
Golkar, the strongest coalition partner of Yudhoyono’s Democratic Party, has also been held hostage by the Gayus tax mafia case. In his testimony, Gayus admitted to having received US$3 million from Bakrie companies. The Democrats clearly can make full use of this case to put pressure on Golkar.
As the second-largest party in the House, Golkar of course is keen to gain as much power as it can get. After the first year of the Yudhoyono-Boediono term, it seems Golkar under Aburizal has not met this goal. Golkar does not have enough free room to maneuver to influence government. The party had strongly suggested a Cabinet reshuffle to put some pressure on Yudhoyono and the Democrats.
In such a situation, it is possible Golkar will maintain its two-legged political role by strengthening its opposition role at the House if Yudhoyono and the Democrats fail to tame Golkar through transactional politics.
Based on previous experience, any legal processes that ensnared and held political parties hostage have ended without clarity thanks to compromises and back-room political deals.
Yudhoyono’s relationship with his coalition partners during the year 2010 was obviously a continuation of the previous round of alliance.
Yudhoyono still relies much on image-building based on rhetoric to maintain “vertical legitimacy” of the people, thereby promoting political compromises and barter-based transactional politics to strengthen the base for “horizontal legitimacy” from the House and the parties.
The transactional model of the coalition has manifested in the form of the coalition joint secretariat. It has collaborated with the stronger interests of Golkar to “influence” policy making, governance and character of Yudhoyono’s leadership. We can expect more political drama to hold the government hostage in the remaining four years of Yuhdoyono’s government.
If Yudhoyono does not immediately change the course of his administration — to leave the political rhetoric of verbal-based image building and adopt performance-based image building and hard work; reducing the proportion of accommodative politics and political compromises; and transactional politics — it is most likely the government will continue to face an exhausting continuing political tug-of-war with politicians.
Of course, Yudhoyono and his coalition party elites should participate and contribute equally. They need to rearrange their priorities. They should put the interests of the people above all else, to get out of the above scenario.
The writer is a political analyst at The Indonesian Institute.
http://www.thejakartapost.com/search/search_words%3Ahanta_yuda+submit%3AGO+
