Cabinet fails to satisfy students

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)