Arief calls for political moratorium up to 2004

Political dispute among Indonesia's leaders have reached new heights. Sociologist Arief Budiman, a professor at Melbourne University, thinks the elite and President Abdurrahman 'Gus Dur' Wahid should display statesmanship for the sake of the people.

Question: What do you think about the continued bickering among the political elite?

Answer: What is needed is statesmanship from the political elite such as Megawati Soekarnoputri and Akbar Tandjung. What is crucial is to salvage the economy for the public's sake. If political bickering continues, investors won't come.

How do you translate that into more concrete terms?

They should quietly meet each other .. (without) fanfare and without media coverage. They should meet Gus Dur in private and talk about a cabinet reshuffle. It doesn't matter if they make political deals because that is what politics is all about.

Each member of the elite should be asked to ensure calm among the public. Akbar is assigned to take care of the House of Representatives and Golkar, Megawati the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan). Once politics cool down, the economy will take care of itself.

Do you think this scheme could work?

The stakes hinge heavily on Gus Dur. There must first be political trust, then a political moratorium could take place. If the elite stops bickering and the economy picks up, the government could work to strengthen the legal system.

Knowing some of the elite personally, are you optimistic that this could be achieved?

If we count on Gus Dur alone, I am pessimistic. But if all his friends, like Megawati, Nurcholish Madjid, including the kyais he revered come and talk to him, I think it is feasible.

Because what is at stake is the nation itself. Once the economy takes off, the elite could fight with each other once again because a noisy political life is healthy, that is the essence of democracy.

But now the government still needs to strengthen its bureaucracy, its judiciary, the economy. Let there be a two or three-year political moratorium.

Maybe people were caught by surprise due to sudden change from an almost sterile political stage to the hurly burly of democracy ...

Yes, I liken this to half starved people who have just come out from jail. They eat vociferously. And because they aren't physically and psychologically healthy they soon fall sick.

The same goes with the bickering of the President and the House, it is actually politically sound. But the country is in transition, it is not in a healthy condition. Later on, when the country is sound, the political infighting could then resume.

What about the high profiled financial scandals, Bruneigate and Buloggate, that are linked to Gus Dur?

Both the leaders and public alike should have a broad enough mind to forget them for the time being. Suppose Gus Dur is guilty, he could always forge an understanding with Akbar and Megawati over these cases. Gus Dur could also ask for public forgiveness. We should all work for the future initially.

What about the so-called New Order forces which are under renewed attack especially from university students?

The stakes are too high to attack the New Order remnant forces in this transition period. The momentum has passed. It would be different if the public demanded a clean cut from the past immediately after Soeharto fell from power in May 1998, by asking all the New Order forces to quit when the military was still powerful.

The boat we are in is too small. It could easily be rocked if Gus Dur committed another act of corruption. Let there be political calm up to 2004, otherwise the bureaucracy, judiciary and economic reform won't move forward.

How do we define the New Order forces, who are they?

I once suggested during a student discussion back in 1998 that people like Emil Salim (former minister during the Soeharto government) could still serve in the new reformist cabinet but my view was flatly rejected.

Certainly we cannot make generalizations, because it won't solve the issue, but we have to look at them case by case.

Now, we have people like Akbar Tandjung who is the House Speaker. The fact that he is a New Order element is something to be lamented but we have to remember that what we are going through is political reform, not a revolution.

Ours is an evolutionary process, not a clean cut one like those when Soeharto took over power (in the mid 1960s). In the case of reform, things change from "black" to "gray", and hopefully to "white" eventually, this is something we will have to learn to accept. This is a compromise. An evolutionary process bequeaths compromises.

How do you see people like former information minister Harmoko, an authentic New Order element who has opted to remain silent.

He cannot be punished. It is fortunate that he keeps silent. Unless we have laws on politics like those in the United States that could hold individuals accountable for their past mistakes, we can't bring people like Harmoko to court. In the U.S. one cannot be punished for his political views but for a violation accompanied by violence.

It is a dilemma that we have a weak legal system. The way out is for our judges should be creative to be able to prosecute past violators.

How do you see the political reform process at present?

The process of reform proceeds in a very benign way. Energy for reform is too weak at the moment.

Why is it too weak?

It's still a mystery. Why did Soeharto opt to quit while the military was still behind him? Perhaps Soeharto was overcome with fatigue and put B.J. Habibie in his place. People knew that Habibie was the epitome of the New Order, yet they didn't stop him from governing, as is the case now with Akbar. (Harry Bhaskara)