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)