Agenda power: Why no takers?

By Donna K. Woodward

MEDAN, North Sumatra (JP): Asked recently about holding one of their domestic summits, the government's key leaders said there was no point in meeting without a clear agenda.

This insight, while undeniable, suggests something ominous: that in this time of national crisis, looming disintegration and growing international misgivings about Indonesia, the key leaders cannot conceptualize the national issues that need addressing.

Indeed, since the administration came to power the four leaders -- President Abdurrahman Wahid, Vice President Megawati Soekarnoputri, Speaker of the legislature Akbar Tandjung and Speaker of the People's Consultative Assembly Amien Rais -- have never joined in articulating an integrated national agenda to the public.

An agenda is a "To Do" list, a compilation of goals and plans. A well-done agenda might even become a mission statement. The right to set a government's agenda is enviable; it gives enormous power.

It is therefore odd that none of the national leaders has jumped at the chance. Here is a suggested jump-start at agenda- setting.

Agenda Item 1: Start a program of conflict resolution. From the earliest days of this administration there has been almost no sincere cooperation among the Four.

Their bickering began immediately following the election, with Amien Rais's challenge that if President Gus Dur's performance in his first three months wasn't acceptable (to whom? in what way?) he would face ouster.

How can this group hope to put an end to the separatist movements and ethnic stresses in the country if they cannot overcome their own petty personal rivalries?

Amien was not the people's choice for president in 1999. He should stop sniping and use his position in the Assembly (MPR) to strengthen the government.

If in doing this he helps the President look successful, all the better; this is the essence of statesmanship. United, the four national leaders have enormous influence and power for good. Fate gives few individuals such an opportunity to affect so many lives; how shortsighted to waste this chance. Therefore the first item of business is, settle the conflicts.

Agenda Item 2: Develop new forms of peaceful coexistence with separatists. A principle is sometimes worth dying for. But Indonesia Raya is a concept. Is a concept worth so many lives; and can the national leaders justify their failure to consider new solutions by relying on a concept?

The government has spent a year repeatedly proposing the same basic concept, in different packaging, to separatist leaders. The option was rejected each time; there seems little likelihood it will succeed now.

Should Indonesia define its national integrity in terms of territory? Suppose the cost of that definition is the violation others' rights of self-determination?

Should emotional ties to past heroes and their dreams dictate Indonesia's future, any more than nostalgia should have dictated the survival of Dutch colonialism?

Soekarno was an independence fighter who wanted to liberate Indonesians from colonialism, not a conqueror of the unwilling. He envisioned a unitary Indonesia that encompassed the whole archipelago; but that territorial ideal is now of questionable validity.

Soekarno did not become a hero by accepting the status quo bequeathed by history. Megawati Soekarnoputri might best honor her father by being unafraid to redefine Indonesia's territorial objectives in a way that best honors ancient aspirations of the Acehnese and Irianese.

Agenda Item 3: Reform the bureaucracy. If the government wants people to trust it enough to accept the painful measures mandated by the International Monetary Fund, government leaders need to ensure that government is seen as a service-oriented friend to people, not as a greedy, blood-sucking anti-people apparatus.

One way to do this would be by taking steps to ensure that those who represent the government, police and local officials, don't squeeze money illegally from people. Though it may sound simplistic, there has not yet been a pronouncement from the President and Vice President, supported by the House (DPR) and MPR heads, saying clearly, without equivocation, that they will commit the combined strength of their offices to the eradication of corruption.

Yes, they have established various commissions and passed some laws, and occasionally they make individual, unconvincing statements against corruption.

But it is clear that their efforts to date have not been credible. Students, workers, community groups, and even the President's four international advisors are not convinced that the government has done enough to end corruption, nepotism, and cronyism.

Indeed many believe that in some cases these very leaders and their close family members are enjoying the fruits of corruption.

Words are cheap, and in themselves mean little. But they do mean something; laws, after all, are words. A verbal commitment is the beginning of accountability.

Therefore let the leaders say the words: we will not engage in corruption or accept it in those who work for us. Let them define in meaningful ways what practices shall be deemed corrupt. Let the four support a code of conduct for themselves and other officials that effectively blocks the many channels that now allow questionable funds to flow back and forth between officials and those wanting favors from the government.

Let the code define what types of fees are legitimate for officials and DPR members, and which are not. Let the code restrict the current practice whereby high officials hold several paying positions at once: Minister as well as faculty member and head of an non government organization, or ambassador or company director or head of a political party.

No wonder the government's productivity is low, if those hired to serve are busy flying around the country to cover several positions. Revolving-door experts, while understandable from one viewpoint, undermine job performance and also prevent new faces from enjoying opportunities and sharing in the income pie. The practice should end.

Among them the four leaders have the political capital to set a daring agenda for the country. None have presented such an agenda to his/her colleagues and we don't know why. Lack of a sense of urgency? Lack of imagination? A false sense of self- sufficiency? Or some hidden agenda of their own?