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.