Cabinet fails to satisfy students

The new Cabinet may extol the values of democracy and reconciliation, but the threat of disintegration still lurks. Political observer Ichlasul Amal of Gadjah Mada University in Yogyakarta discussed the issue with The Jakarta Post.

Question: What do you think of the intensified calls for separation from Indonesia in the past week, particularly in South Sulawesi and Aceh?

Answer: It's indeed a complicated problem. What (the President) tried to do in forming the new Cabinet was to ensure that the regions had their representatives in the central government. In fact, such a representation is only a small part of what can actually be represented.

The most important thing is actually the economic recovery, as the problem (of disintegration) has its roots in the economy. Once the economic problem is settled, the problem of disintegration will be easy to address. Otherwise, no other efforts will work. As you can see, the eastern part of Indonesia is the most backward economically.

Do you think other reconciliation steps are necessary?

The newly formed Cabinet is a reconciliation Cabinet. Yet, the consequences are hard to bear. Inefficiency and ineffectiveness usually follow anything democratic, as it has to accommodate too many parties. To keep it in balance, cohesiveness is needed.

With all the parties being accommodated, hopefully solidarity will emerge and cohesiveness materialize. If cohesiveness is present, high inefficiency will be acceptable. It will be very dangerous if there is no cohesiveness.

What if neither solidarity nor effectiveness and efficiency come from the present Cabinet lineup? Will it be left to make a choice?

We do hope that solidarity, effectiveness and efficiency will emerge. Yet we clearly cannot expect these the way things are unfolding now. Therefore, there should be priorities, in this case solidarity. Once the solidarity crystallizes, it will be able to keep in balance the inefficiency and ineffectiveness.

Do you think reconciliation with public figures is needed, considering that some of them were left out of the Cabinet?

That's the problem. There are many who perceive that the inclusion of public figures from the regions in the Cabinet -- regardless of the fact that they may have been living in Jakarta far too long -- is part of a reconciliation process. This should be corrected.

If the objective is to appoint representatives of regions, why didn't they just pick them from the respective region and not only by virtue of their names (denoting place of origin). It's a Cabinet of symbols, anyway, not a professional one. I can't imagine how a former governor of Irian Jaya can become the state minister of administrative reforms.

Some of the Cabinet members have become the target of public protests including from students. What is your opinion?

We should first see how far the protests go. I'm afraid it's only part of Jakarta's political games. I do hope that it will not spill over to other regions.

Do you think the Cabinet accommodates the demand for reform?

I see a discrepancy considering the fact that it was the students who initiated the reform movement. As nonpartisans, they are demanding a professional Cabinet, yet what they have now is a partisan Cabinet. There are more partisans in the Cabinet than professionals. This is what I call a discrepancy between the students who initiated the reform movement as nonpartisans and the partisans who finally took up places in the Cabinet. It makes sense, therefore, if the Cabinet lineup is disappointing to the students. My view is that it makes sense.

What will be the consequences?

If (the Cabinet) could perform well within a limited period of time, it would mean that it is professional, too. The Cabinet should be given a limited period of time, as demanded by the students, to show that its members are professional.

It was a different case during the New Order era where the military-dominated government did not see it a important to pay much attention to the interests of other groups.

Can we avoid such a contradiction?

As I said, we have a choice. If we demand full professionalism, then an authoritarian force will usually follow. On the other hand if we demand democracy, the consequences are what we are experiencing now. There are always consequences which we cannot totally eliminate.

There are six military members of the Cabinet. Is that too many?

That's one of the consequences I meant because it (the Cabinet) should also accommodate the military.

I repeatedly said before, when we talked about the abolition of the military's dual function, that we should not only talk about those who sit in the House of Representatives. We should also consider other civil positions outside the House. We have given too much attention to those sitting in the House and we have overlooked the other civil positions. (swa)