Arief calls for political moratorium up to 2004

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)