Seven years after Soeharto's resignation<\/p>\n
J. Soedjati Djiwandono, Jakarta<\/p>\n
Exactly seven years ago on May 21, under intense pressure from
\nuniversity students who had been demonstrating continuously for a
\nweek on end, then-president Soeharto resigned. These thousands of
\nstudents, many even climbing over the dome of the huge and
\nmagnificent parliament building, waving red and white national
\nflags, gradually managed to occupy the People's Consultative
\nAssembly (MPR), supposedly the symbol of the people's supreme
\npower.<\/p>\n
For once, the MPR, which had in fact just reelected the
\nPresident for another four-year term through the voice of its
\nchair, supported the students' demand for the resignation of
\nSoeharto. In addition, the night before, a number his ministers
\nhad tendered their resignations.<\/p>\n
Under such circumstances. Soeharto could no longer run a
\ngovernment and announced his resignation and immediately
\nappointed Vice President Habibie as his successor. Immediately
\nthe Chief Justice of the Supreme Court swore in Habibie as
\nPresident.<\/p>\n
This commentary is a modest attempt to learn the lessons for
\nthe betterment of life in this nation in the years ahead. It is
\nto be a simple analysis but with honest, scholarly pretension.<\/p>\n
For an average person, the lessons learned from the past are
\nalmost instinctively felt, if not rationally understood. It seems
\nquite human for people disappointed with current developments to
\nglorify the past, though not without exaggeration.<\/p>\n
I believe Sukarno and Soeharto were equally smart and
\nintelligent, despite their different formal educational
\nbackgrounds. They understood the 1945 Constitution equally well,
\nparticularly in terms of its weaknesses and apparent strengths.
\nWhile both cultivated in the Javanese concept of \"tolerance\" and
\n\"harmony\", both believed that democracy is the best system of
\ngovernment. Sukarno left it to the Constituent Assembly to
\ndetermine the constitution to replace the \"provisional\" 1945
\nConstitution promulgated the day after the proclamation of
\nIndonesian independence.<\/p>\n
However, having enjoyed the sweetness of power for 14 years,
\nbut having witnessed the failure of the Constitutional Assembly
\nin enacting a permanent constitution as required by the 1945
\n\"provisional\" constitution, in 1959 Sukarno decreed the
\ndissolution of the Assembly and the return to the original
\nprovisional 1945 Constitution. There were, however, three
\nessential weaknesses of the 1945 Constitution:<\/p>\n
First, it created an institution with unlimited power, the
\nMPR.<\/p>\n
Second, it provided no separation of powers, with the office
\nof President combining both executive and legislative powers.<\/p>\n
And third, it provided no system of judicial review. Sukarno
\nwas cunning enough to manipulate the constitution by dominating
\nthe MPR: He created the provisional MPRS.<\/p>\n
He was cunning enough to manipulate the constitution by
\ndominating the MPR: He created his own \"provisional\" MPR (called
\nthe MPRS), and his own provisional House of Representatives DPRG
\n(the \"G\" standing for \"Gotong Royong\", \"mutually cooperative\").<\/p>\n
That was, I believe, the main lesson Soeharto learned from
\nSukarno, and that was precisely how he seized and later
\naccumulated power when he finally dominate the MPRS by accusing
\nSukarno of betraying the 1945 Constitution, particularly
\nPancasila, the nation's gravest political sin, by his alleged
\ninvolvement in the so-called Gestapu (\"September 30 Movement\"), a
\ncoup attempt allegedly staged by the Indonesian Communist Party
\n(PKI).<\/p>\n
Then Soeharto created the \"New Order\" regime to \"implement
\nPancasila in a consistent way\", Pancasila Democracy. It was to
\nreplace what he called Sukarno's \"Old Order\" with his \"Guided
\nDemocracy\". This was the main basis for the legitimacy of
\nSoeharto's \"New Order\". And the transfer of power was based on
\nthe so-called Supersemar (March 11 Order).<\/p>\n
Interestingly, since Soeharto's resignation, a question
\nthroughout the entire period of the \"New Order\" was taken for
\ngranted and never questioned, has now emerged. That is whether
\nthe so-called Supersemar ever really existed, and if so, who has
\nkept the original document? And a document has been made public
\nand shown on TV of Sukarno's speech, in which he said that \"the
\nMarch 11 Order\" was \"not a transfer of authority\".<\/p>\n
It is also interesting that both Sukarno's \"guided democracy\"
\nand Soeharto's \"Pancasila democracy\" were claimed to be based on
\nPancasila. Both used the decision-making mechanism called
\n\"deliberations for unanimity\".<\/p>\n
Sukarno made sure it worked by making himself \"the Great
\nLeader of the Revolution\", and then \"President for Life\", and
\nSoeharto did the same by making himself chairman of the \"Dewan
\nPembina\" (a kind of \"Council of Advisers\") of Golkar.<\/p>\n
So it is no wonder that \"national unity\" has since been
\nchanged to \"unity and uniformity\" (persatuan dan kesatuan), a
\nterm still parroted by the present generation of politicians.
\nNowadays, a new mechanism of decision-making is one that is done
\n\"without voting.\"<\/p>\n
The current generation of politicians also knows the
\nweaknesses of the 1945 Constitution and may want to exploit them
\nby making its core values remain ambivalent but sacrosanct, not
\nsubject to change, so as to benefit every group depending on
\ntheir guiles, but they continue to be split among themselves.
\nNone has leadership over a strong group such as the military or
\nthe Golkar. They started reforming the constitution, but in a
\ndevious way.<\/p>\n
The common people can easily see the difference. No strong
\nleadership. As a general, Soeharto had a lot more \"flying hours\"
\nthan the current leader.<\/p>\n
Under Soeharto there was a high degree of peace and stability.
\nThat explains in part why foreign policy was not in disarray as
\nit has been in the reform era. Security was more assured. People
\nwere not afraid to go at night as they are now, when people tend
\nto take law in their own hands. The gap between the rich and the
\npoor was not as wide as it is now.<\/p>\n
Unemployment is getting worse. Corruption? One writer put it
\nin this paper earlier this week on the fight against corruption,
\n\"lots of talk, little action\". Are we getting better, worse, or
\njust staying where we are, like a dog chasing after its own tail?<\/p>\n
The writer is a political analyst.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/seven-years-after-soehartos-resignation-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }