After censure: Reform or replay?

For the House of Representatives (DPR) to have held a sitting president answerable for alleged corruption without succumbing to executive power or threats from partisan supporters was a historic breakthrough. It strengthened the system of checks and balances. It was the right thing to do. Nevertheless, President Abdurrahman "Gus Dur" Wahid must feel a little like a driver who is stopped by the police for speeding as faster-moving cars pass by.

Those guilty of much greater wrongdoing escape detection, while one person's lesser infraction seems attacked beyond proportion. Furthermore, the bona fides of House members as objective born-again pillars of the anti-corruption movement is not universally trusted. If the country is to benefit from the recent unsettling exercise, legislators need to move beyond partisan assaults on rivals to consider what course of action will be best for the country. (Any political figure who continues to place avarice for higher office before the country's needs should be presented a scarlet "A" for ambition and disqualified future consideration as a candidate for national office by his/her party.)

First: DPR/MPR leaders should let the constitutional process play out. Some now advocate rushing the President into impeachment proceedings and out of office without providing him the time allowed by the constitution to answer the memorandum of censure and, if possible, satisfy the House that he has not committed impeachable offenses. This proposal resembles a coup more than a constitutional transition of power. To deny the President his full time to answer the censure does more than disadvantage the President. It impairs the Presidency as an institution. In doing this it ultimately harms the nation, by setting a precedent of precipitous change of government.

Second: Notwithstanding the constitutional right of the President right to defend himself, it now seems more likely than not that there will be a transition of power from President Abdurrahman Wahid to Vice President Megawati Soekarnoputri, either through resignation or impeachment. Just in case, surely the Vice President and her advisors are anticipating this and planning accordingly; to do so is not disloyal but responsible. The first decision the new President (if there is a change) will need to make is the choice of a Vice President. Therefore: Let the new President have the leeway to choose her Vice President primarily for governance capabilities that complement her own, and only secondarily for quid-pro-quo potential.

It will be a disaster for the country if the next Vice President were to be selected in the same back room, bazaar-like fashion used in the October 1999 election. Coalition-building is important, but nation-building is the greater need. Those who might be inclined to offer President Megawati their political weight only in exchange for the office of Vice President, or to challenge her choice of a Vice President for opportunistic reasons, should refrain from doing so for the sake of the next administration's success.

Third: Whether Abdurrahman Wahid or Megawati Soekarnoputri is President when the current scenario has run its course, reform- clean government must become the clarion principle infusing all decisions and programs. As a sign of seriousness, from the outset a new commandment, Thou shalt not permit nepotism, should be appended to the oath of office. Anti-nepotism guidelines should be made public.

As a reform-era leader President Gus Dur should be held to the highest of standards, needs for the country's sake to be, and should have expected the extra scrutiny. What represents the greater danger to the country: premature replacement of a president, or a persisting live-and-let-live tolerance of corrupt practices? The MPR members may soon decide this question. In doing so they will be determining a much larger question about the kind of country Indonesia is to be.

DONNA K. WOODWARD

Medan, North Sumatra