Abdurrahman's governance appears based on hunches

Abdurrahman's governance appears based on hunches

How should one run a government infested with problems from
the past and present? Politics lecturer Ichlasul Amal of
Yoygakarta's Gadjah Mada University shared his views in a recent
interview with The Jakarta Post. The following is an excerpt of
the interview.

Question: How would you evaluate President Abdurrahman Wahid's
(Gus Dur) government these past three months?

Answer: Three months is not enough to judge what achievements
a certain government has made because there are some policies
which cannot be decided in haste, while many easily demand this
and that. The government is facing deeply rooted difficulties
inherited from the Soeharto regime.

But it's also true that after three months Gus Dur's
administration should have a clear goal. His statements and
policies show that he seems to base his steps more on hunches,
like decisions to promote or dismiss somebody.

Maybe high expectations of a fundamental change from Gus Dur
has created the impression that he does not have a systematic way
of governance.

He has closed down the ministries of social affairs and
information; what does that mean to the effort of building a
system? I also hear more ministries are to be closed down.

Democracy is not the same everywhere, and Gus Dur, as a well-
known democratic figure, should know well what kind of democracy
he is going to build here. It's not only about transparency but
(how this is reflected) in institutionalization, recruitment.
This is what should be formulated and introduced to the public.

Do you think some ministries overlap one another?

Some ministries' job descriptions are not clear. There is no
clear distinction between the ministries of maritime exploration
and that of communications, or between the Ministry of
Agriculture and the Ministry of Forestry and Plantations.

The previous government had proposed fusing the latter
ministry into the ministry of agriculture but it is likely that
Gus Dur's close relationship with Minister of Forestry and
Plantations Nur Mahmudi Ismail has nipped that in the bud.

It seems Gus Dur has yet to complete internal consolidation.
What do you suggest he should do?

I agree with (sociologist) Arief Budiman that it is not the
time for Gus Dur to consider who supports him and who does not in
decision-making, but his main consideration should be his
programs. Gus Dur no longer needs to see his ministers as
representatives of some political groups such as the "axis
force", the military, or any other group.

That way the division between the ruler and those opposing him
becomes clear. One consequence of the presidential system is that
the ruler is the executive and the opposition is in the House of
Representatives. But everything is unclear now.

Meanwhile, some ministers report to those who promoted them to
be in Gus Dur's Cabinet. They also allegedly lack loyalty to
their superior, the President. So if Gus Dur wants to replace
such ministers, he should just do it, for it is absolutely the
President's right and responsibility.

How do you see certain political parties' effort to control a
number of ministries and state-owned companies?

That's normal in the development of political freedom. In
(first president) Sukarno's era, political parties competed over
state-owned plantations to raise funds, and over important posts
in the bureaucracy and even in universities to impose their
political influence through education.

Regardless of Soeharto's tight control over political life, we
should not turn back to Sukarno's time in which political parties
quarreled in a vulgar manner.

At that time, the government's assets went to certain parties.
Isn't that just another form of corruption, collusion and
nepotism?

So Gus Dur should arrange a systematized democratization,
including a democratic mechanism to elect a president director of
a state-owned company (speculation has flourished regarding the
management changes in a number of state-owned companies).

It is also important that Gus Dur define his policy over the
bureaucracy. There are some alternatives. One example is America
which allows the intervention of political parties.

The United States' style is more like what the Soeharto regime
did to the bureaucracy with its ruling Golkar Party. Gus Dur's
administration could also start a merit system which would be
untouchable under certain conditions ... banning political
intervention as the bureaucracy would be based on meritocracy.

There are reports that Pak Amien (Rais, speaker of the
People's Consultative Assembly, MPR) made suggestions to the
government regarding the appointment of the new National Police
chief. How can that be? Too much intervention by the President
into the military institution could be dangerous. In the 1950s,
the military protested the fact that the Ministry of Defense,
influenced by political parties and the president, determined who
could be Army chief of staff and other policies.

Gus Dur has seemingly not completed consolidation regarding
the Indonesian Military (TNI) either. Your comment?

As the former military spokesman said, TNI under its new
paradigm has become subordinate to civilians. That's probably
right as a formal statement, but in real Indonesian politics a
change in TNI's role does not work at such speed.

We only left behind Soeharto's militaristic regime just two
years ago while Soeharto spent decades building his political
structure. TNI's authority nowadays is indeed at its lowest
point, but the situation should not be used to further corner
TNI. While TNI is formally subordinate to civilians, we also
should realize the more potential danger which comes from TNI
members, not the institution itself.

I want to stress that Gus Dur must take care and be systematic
in helping the military establish professionalism. Maybe he has
started to do so already, but his steps have so far been limited
to individuals. His replacement of A and B could lead to
disappointment. Such steps should be institutionalized; the
problem is quite complicated and will take time to overcome as it
entails a much larger interest from those outside the military.

An inevitable decision to dismiss and promote top brass
officials should be done through an influential figure in TNI.

When do you think all this political consolidation should be
settled?

Not many people care about it. Many pay more attention to
their daily lives or efforts to cope with the crisis. But if
success in consolidation relates to effectiveness in handling
recovery, he has no choice but to wrap up the consolidation soon.

How should Gus Dur face Islamic groups outside Nahdlatul Ulama
(NU) who often disagree with his policies and views?

I think there's no clear answer. Anybody who becomes president
should be able to stand for all groups and interests. I think Gus
Dur has that capacity.

Do you mean that Islamic groups are not a political threat to
Gus Dur?

Yes. Besides, undermining Gus Dur's position would exact
strong reaction from NU supporters. I think Gus Dur is the best
choice for almost all political groups, and he was the only
choice for Muslims outside NU.

Do you think sectarian riots, particularly those in Maluku,
could force Gus Dur to resign?

No. First because he has very strong support from most people,
particularly at the grassroot level and in the House of
Representatives.

Second, people are bored with the uncertainty caused by a
presidential transition, even more so in such a bad economic
climate. Transition is not simple. We can't base calculations
only on possible conspiracies among Jakarta's political elite; we
should also take the common people into account.

Third, only a president's involvement in a criminal act or a
scandal could make him resign. Because we have a presidential
system in which a president is given the mandate to rule for a
five-year term. A president can be judged unsuccessful once in a
five-year term by the MPR. The judgment determines a president's
chance for reelection.

MPR's annual plenary meeting to evaluate the government is not
a forum that can make a president step down. The MPR can only
issue warnings or make recommendations to a president regarding
any perceived misconduct.

Gus Dur is much criticized for lacking statesmanship. What do
you think?

I agree with Arief again on this, who said Gus Dur still acts
more as commentator or a critic than a president. I also think he
acts as though he is outside the administration circle. This is
extraordinary but it could also be a problem in boosting the
government's performance. It's good in reducing the sacredness of
the presidency. Maybe it's because he was an independent critic
for years and now finds it difficult to distinguish when to act
as a president and when to be a critic.

Again, the most important thing is that Gus Dur must formulate
clearer and better planned programs for his government. (Asip
Agus Hasani)