After censure: Reform or replay?

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