A messy state
A messy state
A "messy" state was how New York Times' columnist Thomas
Friedman described Indonesia after seeing the country first hand
and talking to many people in Jakarta last week. It is an apt if
not fair characterization of where Indonesia stands today when it
comes to the process of democratization.
In his article, reprinted in Wednesday's International Herald
Tribune, Friedman divided countries in the postcold war period
into five categories: authoritarian states (Iraq and North
Korea), democratic states (America and France), democratizing
states (Poland, Chile and Hungary), failed states (Sierra Leone
and Liberia) and messy states (Indonesia and Russia). He said
Indonesia and Russia are too big to fail but too messy to work.
Indonesia can still take heart that it is not considered a
failed state, which would be a totally hopeless condition. This
would have echoed the warnings by some people about the nation
disintegrating, unless it reverses the current trend.
Not every one would agree with Friedman's characterization of
Indonesia as a messy state but few people could argue against the
tone of his argument that the strong optimism on the process of
democratic transition in Indonesia which prevailed last year has
now given way to massive disillusionment.
Until a few months ago, many people here and abroad still
viewed Indonesia as a country in transition. There were strong
hopes that democracy would finally take root in this country
under the new national leadership which was elected through a
democratic process in October 1999.
Abdurrahman Wahid's election as Indonesia's first truly
democratically elected leader 12 months ago was indeed a
milestone in this process. In the first few months of his
leadership, he fitted the bill and sent many positive signals.
His greatest contribution in those first months was taming the
once politically powerful military and bringing it under civilian
control.
That seemed to be as far as the process of democratization
went. Since then, Indonesia has been drifting without a clear
direction. Hopes and expectations began to make way to
disappointment and disillusionment. The new government has not
only failed to deal with problems inherited from the past regime
but it has also created some of its own to compound the nation's
problems.
Politically, the nation remains in disarray with the unrest
still brewing in Aceh, Maluku, Central Sulawesi and Irian Jaya.
If these were not enough, the administration seems to be
constantly embroiled in fighting the legislature, at times even
to the brink of a constitutional crisis. The economic recovery
has not been supported by new real investments, raising serious
doubts about its sustainability. The judiciary, an important
institution to ensure the workings of democracy, is not
functioning. Nothing was getting done in this country these past
few months. Indonesia indeed a messy state.
Although it would be unfair to put the blame entirely on
President Abdurrahman Wahid, he has been a determinant in this
state of affairs. Likewise, he will be a crucial factor on
whether and when Indonesia would ever move back from being a
messy to a democratizing state.
President Abdurrahman's often erratic behavior has not helped
the situation and at times even aggravated the problems. More and
more people who had supported and placed so much of hope on him
last year, are now wondering whether he had been the right choice
to lead Indonesia in the transition to a democracy.
Now with the nation seemingly resigned to the President's
eccentricities and erratic behavior, Indonesia will likely
continue to drift in the present state of affairs for a few more
years. That begs the question of when, if ever, are we going to
start clearing this mess, or more importantly, who is going to
take the initiative to clear this mess.