Cabinet fails to satisfy students<\/p>\n
The new Cabinet may extol the values of democracy and
\nreconciliation, but the threat of disintegration still lurks.
\nPolitical observer Ichlasul Amal of Gadjah Mada University in
\nYogyakarta discussed the issue with The Jakarta Post.<\/p>\n
Question: What do you think of the intensified calls for
\nseparation from Indonesia in the past week, particularly in South
\nSulawesi and Aceh?<\/p>\n
Answer: It's indeed a complicated problem. What (the
\nPresident) tried to do in forming the new Cabinet was to ensure
\nthat the regions had their representatives in the central
\ngovernment. In fact, such a representation is only a small part
\nof what can actually be represented.<\/p>\n
The most important thing is actually the economic recovery, as
\nthe problem (of disintegration) has its roots in the economy.
\nOnce the economic problem is settled, the problem of
\ndisintegration will be easy to address. Otherwise, no other
\nefforts will work. As you can see, the eastern part of Indonesia
\nis the most backward economically.<\/p>\n
Do you think other reconciliation steps are necessary?<\/p>\n
The newly formed Cabinet is a reconciliation Cabinet. Yet, the
\nconsequences are hard to bear. Inefficiency and ineffectiveness
\nusually follow anything democratic, as it has to accommodate too
\nmany parties. To keep it in balance, cohesiveness is needed.<\/p>\n
With all the parties being accommodated, hopefully solidarity
\nwill emerge and cohesiveness materialize. If cohesiveness is
\npresent, high inefficiency will be acceptable. It will be very
\ndangerous if there is no cohesiveness.<\/p>\n
What if neither solidarity nor effectiveness and efficiency
\ncome from the present Cabinet lineup? Will it be left to make a
\nchoice?<\/p>\n
We do hope that solidarity, effectiveness and efficiency will
\nemerge. Yet we clearly cannot expect these the way things are
\nunfolding now. Therefore, there should be priorities, in this
\ncase solidarity. Once the solidarity crystallizes, it will be
\nable to keep in balance the inefficiency and ineffectiveness.<\/p>\n
Do you think reconciliation with public figures is needed,
\nconsidering that some of them were left out of the Cabinet?<\/p>\n
That's the problem. There are many who perceive that the
\ninclusion of public figures from the regions in the Cabinet --
\nregardless of the fact that they may have been living in Jakarta
\nfar too long -- is part of a reconciliation process. This should
\nbe corrected.<\/p>\n
If the objective is to appoint representatives of regions, why
\ndidn't they just pick them from the respective region and not
\nonly by virtue of their names (denoting place of origin). It's a
\nCabinet of symbols, anyway, not a professional one. I can't
\nimagine how a former governor of Irian Jaya can become the state
\nminister of administrative reforms.<\/p>\n
Some of the Cabinet members have become the target of public
\nprotests including from students. What is your opinion?<\/p>\n
We should first see how far the protests go. I'm afraid it's
\nonly part of Jakarta's political games. I do hope that it will
\nnot spill over to other regions.<\/p>\n
Do you think the Cabinet accommodates the demand for reform?<\/p>\n
I see a discrepancy considering the fact that it was the
\nstudents who initiated the reform movement. As nonpartisans, they
\nare demanding a professional Cabinet, yet what they have now is a
\npartisan Cabinet. There are more partisans in the Cabinet than
\nprofessionals. This is what I call a discrepancy between the
\nstudents who initiated the reform movement as nonpartisans and
\nthe partisans who finally took up places in the Cabinet. It makes
\nsense, therefore, if the Cabinet lineup is disappointing to the
\nstudents. My view is that it makes sense.<\/p>\n
What will be the consequences?<\/p>\n
If (the Cabinet) could perform well within a limited period of
\ntime, it would mean that it is professional, too. The Cabinet
\nshould be given a limited period of time, as demanded by the
\nstudents, to show that its members are professional.<\/p>\n
It was a different case during the New Order era where the
\nmilitary-dominated government did not see it a important to pay
\nmuch attention to the interests of other groups.<\/p>\n
Can we avoid such a contradiction?<\/p>\n
As I said, we have a choice. If we demand full
\nprofessionalism, then an authoritarian force will usually follow.
\nOn the other hand if we demand democracy, the consequences are
\nwhat we are experiencing now. There are always consequences which
\nwe cannot totally eliminate.<\/p>\n
There are six military members of the Cabinet. Is that too
\nmany?<\/p>\n
That's one of the consequences I meant because it (the
\nCabinet) should also accommodate the military.<\/p>\n
I repeatedly said before, when we talked about the abolition
\nof the military's dual function, that we should not only talk
\nabout those who sit in the House of Representatives. We should
\nalso consider other civil positions outside the House. We have
\ngiven too much attention to those sitting in the House and we
\nhave overlooked the other civil positions. (swa)<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/cabinet-fails-to-satisfy-students-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}