Agenda power: Why no takers?
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?