A fiery debate

A fiery debate

There was an emotional storm in a political tea cup here last
week. The root of the low-quality but high-voltage debate, which
involved high-profile politicians, was a statement made by Dr.
Juwono Sudarsono, a professor of political science at University
of Indonesia. He said that only people with a military background
will be able to lead the country again for the next five years.

According to the professor, who is also deputy governor of the
National Resilience Institute, a military think tank, no civilian
is ready to become president until 2005.

The statement caused anger among many politicians and
political observers, notably after a newspaper confused the word
president in his statement as national leadership. The strong
reactions ranged from calling Juwono's statement a setback, to
accusing him of being a civilian traitor.

Many also criticized him for raising the military-civilian
dichotomy because, they said, it is no longer relevant in
Indonesia's case. The more pessimistic went so far as to say that
civilians should accept the fact that the military will continue
to dominate the country's politics for the next five decades. "If
you don't have a gun, just shut up," said an editor of a now-
defunct newspaper.

What was clear between the lines was a feeling of concern
among some politicians that Juwono's statement augured the
continuation of the blockage of civilians' opportunity to lead
the country when the People's Consultative Assembly elects a
national president in March.

The fear and frustration was distinct in the harsh words some
politicians used against Juwono, accusing him of speaking at the
behest of his military boss within the institute, while another
called him a traitor. A third political observer suspected Juwono
of making a statement to bait reaction from politicians who have
been dreaming for some time of filling Soeharto's shoes. Since
Prof. Juwono has been regarded by many as a foremost and unbiased
political analyst, it was too brutal to brand him someone's mouth
piece.

There is mounting concern among some politicians here over the
nation's future if the military continues to dominate politics
amid the ever-stronger wind of openness sweeping many parts of
our planet today. There is also the reality that the number of
United Nations members who are ruled by the military has been
drastically reduced lately. And every time foreign political
analysts name military regimes in Asia, Indonesia is always
juxtaposed next to a junta, which in 1990 canceled the result of
a democratic election in its country and later jailed the popular
leader of the victorious political party. There is also the old
adage that the military is anathema to democracy and human
rights.

But those who do not agree with this axiom said that Indonesia
has different experiences and its military has a unique task and
historical background. In this country, there have been as many
successful military functionaries in the sociopolitical domain as
there have been successful civilians in the struggle for survival
during the national revolution. That is why they said discussion
on the dichotomy has been very rare here.

However, the debate has taken place not only because of the
controversial statement from Dr. Juwono but also from the belief
that, to date, civilians have not been given an equal chance in
political recruitment. And had this country groomed its future
leaders long in advance and in a more open way, the problem would
be more transparent and no such debate would be needed.