Wimar Witoelar, Jakarta – The brouhaha surrounding the trouble in the ruling coalition between the Democratic Party, the Golkar Party and the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) might seem complicated and confusing to the average observer.

It is made even more confusing by the media and political commentators who seem to make a living from making political issues even more complicated than they should be.

The simple fact is Golkar and the PKS have opposed the government on several key issues, including on calls for separate probes into the Bank Century bailout and graft at the tax office. The main protagonists in the contest are President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, a complicated man because he always tries to please all sides, and Golkar chairman Aburizal Bakrie, a practical man who uses a wide range of tools to expand his influence. We need to cut through the fog and offer a framework to reduce the issue to the bare essentials.

First, the coalition is neither a legal entity nor a political convention. This is the first time that an Indonesian president has lent such importance to the concept, because for most of our history the government has been designed as a presidential system. It is even truer with the majority that SBY won in the 2009 presidential election, which at 60 plus percent easily classified him as a landslide winner, burying two rivals in the remaining 40 percent votes.

President Yudhoyono was confronted by a small inconvenience when it turned out his political party had won a smaller percentage of the House than he had votes in the presidential election, leaving them in a minority position. His strategy was then to form a coalition with parties that together would round up enough parliamentary votes to gain a majority to support the government. This was achieved by getting Golkar on board in addition to several smaller parties.

The decision to enter the coalition was rewarded by handing out Cabinet seats to cooperative parties such as Golkar, the PKS, the United Development Party (PPP), the National Mandate Party (PAN) and the National Awakening Party (PKB). Notably absent in the coalition was the party of Megawati Soekarnoputri, the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P).

The arrangement was for the coalition to control parliament, and for the coalition partners to enjoy Cabinet seats. This leaves out the people, who were rapidly becoming a neglected majority.

The marriage of convenience fell apart when Golkar and the PKS went against the President in trying to force through a motion to form an inquiry committee which would become a distraction to a special investigation into tax corruption allegedly involving companies owned by the Bakrie Group. The motion came not long after Golkar had defied the government by spearheading a cabal against Vice President Boediono and former finance minister Sri Mulyani Indrawati in a bold bluff in the House and by a news TV station owned by the Bakrie Group.

This time Priyo Budi Santoso, deputy chairman of Golkar, admitted that the inquiry would clear the name of his chairman. Many opposed the inquiry committee, saying it endangered government stability. Ultimately the attempt was defeated in a plenary session by a single vote. A narrow margin but enough to tip the political balance against Golkar and the PKS. This was the last straw for SBY, who immediately responded by calling for a reevaluation of coalition loyalty and a reshuffle of the Cabinet.

Unfortunately the strong initial response by SBY was followed by a loss of momentum as the President fumbled. Backroom maneuvering has left SBY at an embarrassing crossroads. Needing the PDI-P and Gerindra to fill the coalition vacuum, their reluctance has given Golkar confidence as the chairman openly mocked SBY by saying that his party was ready to become an opposition party, and that leadership was not for the fainthearted. Golkar has thus called out the President, but SBY may yet win to survive another day.

The situation will weaken the President unless he goes for a long pass. Common sense dictates that the coalition issue and the Cabinet issue should be kept separate. The coalition affects House's effectiveness while Cabinet's quality gives the President credibility.

Ministers should be selected on the basis of competence, not politics. The poor performance of the Cabinet has been public knowledge for more than a year, since the President's problem solving team led by UKP4 chief Kuntoro Mangkusubroto submitted a performance evaluation that gave red marks to several ministries for poor performance.

From the public viewpoint some of the most glaring weak links are the religious affairs minister, who has resisted the President's call for tolerance and pluralism, and the communications and information technology minister who largely misunderstands the function of expanding IT infrastructure, and instead chooses to involve himself emotionally in moralistic issues like pornography.

This has alienated him from progressive elements in society including young professionals.

Replacements for these ministers would be facilitated by the fact that both represent political parties that have betrayed the coalition. The question facing SBY is whether the House support would weaken if he were to irritate the PKS and the PPP whose party leaders would be disgraced. That is an unnecessary worry, because there is no majority public opinion supporting these ministers. In a broader sense, parliamentary support is at a nadir; things cannot get much worse.

The hope is that if SBY stands firm against disruptive politicians, members of parliament will be encouraged to stand up to the self-serving political party leaders. Currently there is no distinction between the interests of Golkar and their chairman, but cracks will surely appear if Bakrie's leadership is not sanctioned by the President.

So the simple recipe is to replace incompetent Cabinet ministers, ignore the coalition and govern by policy and performance and regain voter confidence by stepping up campaigns against corruption and tax evasion.

This is hardly a secret recipe; it is so simple everybody knows it must be done. But the President may have secret reasons not to follow it.

[The writer is a public relations consultant with InterMatrix Communications.]