And six years later the reform remains fickle

And six years later the reform remains fickle

Elwin Tobing, The Indonesian Institute, Jakarta,
elwin@theindonesianinstitute.org

So here we are. Six years after we shouted reformasi (reform)
desperately. And, six years after we started dreaming of a new
Indonesia -- less poverty, less corruption, more jobs and tougher
law enforcement. Six years have passed, our future is still
uncertain. The above four indicators have not been satisfied.
Now, we are starting to ask, "What went wrong?"

Six years is not a short period of time. It is enough for a
nation to start establishing the foundations for a better future,
and it's enough to realize that something was wrong in the past.
If there is something that we are proud of during the last six
years, it must be this: We have had more presidents in the last
six years than in the forty years since independence in 1945.

When Soeharto was in power, the question we often asked was
how to replace him. Now that he was gone, the question becomes,
"Who will be the next president?" In both cases, however, we have
forgotten to ask a more fundamental question, what is the future
of this nation?

I used to believe that time would teach people lessons and
people would learn lessons from time. But in our case, this is
not always true. We experienced the former but missed the latter.
While time did teach us a lesson -- that political, economic and
social crises could simultaneously take place, we failed to learn
lessons from time -- that political and economic recovery cannot
be realized without a clear and rational plan.

And now I am starting to wonder whether we really understand
what we said six years ago. Or whether we really meant what we
said at that time. I am also starting to wonder who actually
wanted reform six years ago.

Let's start off with the first question. Reformasi, the one we
loudly shouted for and desperately wanted six years ago, has the
same meaning as it has today. No matter how we treat it, whether
as a verb or a noun, it implies the same thing: Better, as a
verb, reform means to change into an improved condition or to
improve by removal of faults or by introducing a better course of
action. As a noun it means an amendment of what is defective,
vicious, corrupt, or depraved. Or it is a correction of an abuse
or a wrong. We can simply summarize its meaning into three words:
Change for the better.

But have we changed for the better? Yes, we have changed in
many instances, but only in a circular mode. We have changed our
malfunctioning legislative with a one characterized malpractice.
We have replaced our authoritarian leaders with rather hopeless
ones. We have changed our corrupt government leaders and
bureaucrats with other corrupt leaders and bureaucrats.

And in all respects, one thing remains unchanged: A corrupt
mentality. No wonder, we are now on the brink of suffering from
another kind of poverty, that is, a poverty of dignity. That
leads me to the second question: Did we really mean what we said
six years ago?

Some say Indonesians are good at saying something but doing
something else, as if they were natural-born politicians. But in
a time of crisis, people usually tend to be honest. So, I always
believe that when people are in trouble -- such as living in
poverty or losing their capability to grow, they tend to
acknowledge their situation and express their willingness to
commit for a change.

There is no doubt, six years ago our people were really in
trouble and desperate for a change. Jobs were gone, prices were
skyrocketing and chaos was everywhere. And when they shouted
"reform", they meant it.

They were tired of going to neighboring countries to find jobs
illegally only to be sent home again. They were tired of
witnessing hypocracy at the highest levels. But if they did mean
it, why are we still living in the valley of depravity? That
brings me to the third question: Who actually wanted reform six
years ago?

Although almost all elements in society loudly yelled for
reform, not all of them were driven by the same motive. When the
demonstrators -- students and lay people -- cried for reform,
they wanted a change for the better. They were the ones who
really needed it. When politicians, bureaucrats and other
interest groups yelled for reform, they meant something else.
What they wanted was not a change for better, but a change for
me.

For them reform means reform for me. They are a greedy group.
That's why corruption has been increasing and irresponsible
conduct on the part of the executive, legislators and bureaucrats
keeps taking place. Unfortunately, it is the second group that
has a stronger influence on the future of the nation than the
first one.

The biggest challenge for the nation today, therefore, is not
how to bring back our annual income per capita to US$1,000.
Neither is it how to minimize corruption. The foremost challenge
is how to engender the same understanding about and commitment to
reform in the needy group as in the needy one.

As we get ready for the 2004 general election, it is crucial
to identify which people actually perceives reform as meaning a
change for better and who perceives it as a change for the better
for me. And as each vote matters, every Indonesian has to start
realizing that he or she has an indirect and direct influence on
the future of this nation.

However, in order to have a bigger impact, they must do at
least two things. First, they must develop constructive, not
destructive, pressure groups by building cooperation with one
another and at the same time isolating the greedy group.
Secondly, they must start supporting and rewarding openly the
ones who oppose the greedy group and the ones who help the needy
group. Unless we realize and develop such attitudes and values,
the reform we have so desperately needed for the last six years
will never materialize.