A case of cautious optimism about the new MPR speaker

A case of cautious optimism about the new MPR speaker

By Hidayat Jati

JAKARTA (JP): The dynamics of Indonesian politics, a force
unleashed in great momentum after the country was struck by the
financial crisis in late 1997, continues to surprise observers
and players alike. The latest instance came with the victory of
Amien Rais, the speaker of the strongly pluralistic and
progressive National Mandate Party (PAN), in the race for the
leadership of the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR), the
highest constitutional body in the country. Many observers and
players find this victory pleasantly surprising, while many
others, including those in PAN, find it disturbing.

Those who like and trust Amien believe that he will use his
new power to promote democratization and pluralism while
combating corruption. In a nutshell, he will use the MPR
leadership to bolster the reformasi movement.

But in contrast, those who found his victory disturbing, or
even threatening, fear that Amien has deserted his party's
platform and may even use his position to reelect President
Habibie, an old acquaintance who was supposed to be the political
enemy of the National Mandate Party.

Such diverging reactions stem from two key factors: Amien's
behavior in politics, which have taken several major U-turns, and
the peculiarity of the mechanism of the Assembly itself. Although
these two factors are not entirely justifiable, they will
inevitably haunt Amien's leadership of the MPR and all his future
political actions.

But let us first examine the facts. Amien came to victory even
though his party only secured 7.3 percent of the available
elected seats in the general elections. More surprisingly, he
participated in the MPR leadership race only at the last minute,
since his new found political partner and former political
nemesis, Abdurrahman Wahid, failed to secure endorsement from the
nonelected group appointees.

Amien's victory was possible, first of all, because the
mechanism of the Assembly allows parties and politicians to make
all sorts of deals and compromises to achieve their political
objectives. Naturally, the outcome of such deals will not
necessarily mirror the results of the general election. This key
factor is perfectly legal, and should be well understood by
Assembly's participants.

In this sense, no observers or politicians should be
overwhelmed by the outcome. But at the same time, it is hard to
deny the irony that Amien was able to capitalize on the slippery
political mechanism allowed by the 1945 Constitution, which he
had vowed to amend, while Megawati Soekarnoputri, who sanctified
the Constitution, fell victim to such a mechanism.

Of course, one may also argue, that the Assembly's mechanism
is not perfectly democratic in the sense that the popular may be
compromised or even betrayed by the maneuvers at the Assembly.
But such an argument is only truly valid in the case of the
presidential election. Most voters during June's general
election, of which almost all had no prior experience in a real
democratic election, were clearly not thinking about the MPR
leadership race when exercising their right. This was because
virtually all contesting political parties openly and
uncompromisingly advertised themselves as future occupiers of the
presidential office.

The legitimacy of the MPR leadership race was further sealed
by the voting mechanism and the fact that the process was covered
by live television. The process, done through voting, was
democratic in the widest sense of the word since most Assembly
members voted for Amien. The preceding deals and compromises do
not negate the quality of the outcome of the process.

The other controversial factor surrounding Amien's victory is
his avenue of maneuvering. It is here that Amien will have to be
more convincing to his critics. Amien won because he was clearly
supported by the discredited Golkar Party, the party of the
disgraced Soeharto and his handpicked successor, Habibie. Amien,
who ran in the June election on the back of a pluralist platform,
also became the speaker of the MPR because of his leadership in
the "axis force", an alliance between Islamic parties. It is here
that some, including those inside PAN's leadership, feared that a
betrayal of the reformasi and pluralist ideas might have taken
place.

To some degree, the fears are justified. But one must also be
cautious. Has Amien Rais, since he declared his intention to
mobilize the axis force, stated any clear signs that he is
abandoning pluralism or supporting President B.J. Habibie's
reelection? The answer is a strong "no". Has he attacked any
minorities group the way he did in the early 1990's? Again, the
answer is strongly negative. To be sure, Amien's maneuvering with
the Islamic forces, as well as Golkar, has resurrected the stigma
which was stuck on him for being a sectarian politician. But this
is almost the same as condemning a man with a guilty verdict
before a trial.

Amien's maneuvering with the axis force and Golkar was done to
ensure his political survival by using all the available means.
In principle, such maneuvering is not much different than
survival using available means. In principle, such maneuvering is
not much different to what Megawati supposedly did by smoothing
the way for Golkar veteran Ginandjar Kartasasmita, the long-time
Soeharto employee, to become an MPR member. It is also not much
different to the constant communication that human rights
campaigner Marzuki Darusman must have apparently had with the
military. What is it about us that makes it so easy to condemn
Amien's maneuvering and condone others?

Golkar indeed poses a problem. Despite being a disgraced
political grouping, it has managed to secure the second largest
vote at 22.4 percent in the general election. No one can afford
to ignore this party. But most observers know that Golkar is
facing a severe internal problem, more so than other parties,
because it is tied to an unpopular incumbent. It would be very
tempting for all the politicians to ally with the incumbent's
would-be traitors within Golkar. It should be noted that it was
Kwik Kian Gie, the leader of the Indonesian Democratic Party of
Struggle (PDI Perjuangan), known for his high moral standing, who
first coined the phrase "white" and "black" Golkar. We may not
like it, but Akbar Tandjung has become the most desired man in
the legislature.

Maybe we are just not used to political compromises. In the
thirty-two years of Soeharto's reign, politicians were nothing
but political accessories. Negotiations were kept to a minimum
since it was the order of the great leader or his armed followers
that mattered. Once he was gone, desperately needed political
changes were brought about by student demonstrations, which were
noble actions requiring courage and conviction -- and the very
minimum of compromises. To negotiate has become a sin in post-
Soeharto Indonesia, regardless of the reality that the political
scene is widely fragmented.

But now Amien has secured a strategic position. He must now
start delivering his promises. We shall see whether he will
struggle within the MPR so that the highest legislative body will
create a number of decrees that will truly forward the
"reformasi" movement. We shall soon see whether Amien will use
his position to amend the 1945 Constitution to create a real
pluralist democracy, to eliminate the excessive political
privilege of the military and create new laws to fight corruption
and the human rights abuse allegedly committed by the Soeharto
and Habibie governments. Only then should we cast our real
judgment. From now on, we should allow Amien Rais to do his work.

The writer is a PAN voter who has no official positions in the
party or in any Islamic organizations.