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.