Presidential election shows popular wisdom<\/p>\n
Goenawan Mohamad, Jakarta<\/p>\n
In his piece, After election euphoria, the pitfalls awaiting
\nSusilo, (The Jakarta Post, Sept. 28, 2004) Harry Bhaskara gives a
\nless-than-optimistic view of Indonesian politics.<\/p>\n
I'd like to think of myself as a professional pessimist, but
\nthis time I cannot resist telling you one anecdote. The other
\nday, I told a taxi driver that, next time, the Jakarta mayor
\nwould be directly elected by the people. The man (who came from a
\nvillage on the border of Central and West Java) was elated. His
\nanswer was: \"Great, just like the way we elect our lurah, isn't
\nit?\".<\/p>\n
That reminded me of something I saw as a kid living in a
\nCentral Java village: People did (and in many parts of the
\ncountry still do) cast their votes to elect their village chiefs.
\nIn other words, for many Indonesians living in rural areas, it is
\nthe \"modern\" sector that follows the way of tradition, not vice
\nversa. Without trying to idealize rural politics, I am not of the
\nopinion that political competition is a completely new thing to
\nthis country. Perhaps, it is about time we took a fresh look at
\nIndonesian political history.<\/p>\n
Harry Bhaskara writes that \"it is obvious throughout
\nIndonesian history\" that politicians are fond of \"revenge\" once
\nthey are defeated. I beg to disagree. \"Revenge\", (with its
\nviolent connotation) was not a common pattern in Indonesian
\npolitics from 1948 to 1958, when a parliamentary system was in
\noperation, when one prime minister lost to another almost on
\nregular basis.<\/p>\n
To be sure, there were failed coup attempts and armed
\nconflicts, but most politicians saw these as an aberration,
\ngenerated by an extraordinary situation, to become a regular
\nfeature of Indonesian politics.<\/p>\n
This was, however, interrupted by Sukarno and the Army in
\n1958. Constitutional democracy was abolished. In its place,
\nSukarno put his \"guided democracy\".<\/p>\n
As I see it, the 1965 massacre (which Harry Bhaskara uses as
\nan example) had nothing to do with \"revenge\" in the wake of a
\npolitical defeat. In the first place, there was no political
\ndefeat in 1965.<\/p>\n
What we had was a totalitarian temper generated by the
\n\"return to the 1945 Revolution,\" (promoted by the Army, the
\ncommunists, the nationalists and Muslim political groupings),
\nthe constant mobilization of militant symbols, (marching youth
\ngroups in uniform, etc.), the adoption of the rhetoric of
\nviolence (ganyang! or \"crush\") used by Sukarno, the atmosphere of
\nintolerance (the banning of \"counterrevolutionary\" political
\ngroupings, newspapers, artistic and literary expressions), and
\nthe lack of regular and democratic political competition (the
\nArmy was afraid that the Communists would win an election, and
\nSukarno was a president-for-life).<\/p>\n
Of course, it is still too early to find out whether the kind
\nof democracy we are now enjoying will last. But I agree with
\nGwynne Dyer's concluding remark in his piece published on the
\nsame day (New President under new era of democracy): \"The popular
\nwisdom may not be all that sophisticated, but it probably isn't
\nwrong either\".<\/p>\n
He is referring to Indonesian popular wisdom in 2004, I think
\n-- not popular wisdom in general. I voted for Amien Rais and to
\nmy regret he lost, but I have the impression that Indonesian
\nvoters this year have more wisdom than the American ones, who,
\ndespite their open political debate on the famous lies and
\nfailures of the current administration, still give George W. Bush
\na strong lead in the opinion polls.<\/p>\n
The writer is Senior Editor of Tempo Weekly news magazine.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/presidential-election-shows-popular-wisdom-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }