Compromise and threats of violence

Compromise and threats of violence

By J. Soedjati Djiwandono

JAKARTA (JP): The minutes are ticking away toward the end of
the month, the day the House of Representatives will convene its
plenary session, while the whole nation is on tenterhooks and
politicians continue to make so much fuss about the possibility
of a meeting among the top leadership.

Will they agree to reconciliation through compromise? A
meeting maybe, but a compromise? And what kind of compromise?

The signs do not seem promising. Abdurrahman "Gus Dur" Wahid
has indicated -- again -- when saying that he would present his
accountability report to the People's Consultative Assembly in
2004, that he really wants to carry on to the end of his term as
President.

He claimed that Vice President Megawati Soekarnoputri had
pledged to support his presidency until 2004, and that she wanted
to remain Vice President. This, however, has been denied by her
party, the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI
Perjuangan).

The President has also warned of a "nationwide rebellion"
against the House if its attempts to oust him continue. This must
be a special kind of rebellion, for a rebellion is normally
understood to be staged against a government.

Previously he also warned that Aceh, Irian Jaya and,
ridiculously, even the small island of Madura would declare
independence should he step down.

What are the possible implications? Gus Dur seems to remain
self-confident, if not overconfident. He does not seem to realize
the gravity of the crucial, even dangerous, situation. He does
not seem to realize the real threat to national unity.

One would rightly wonder whether his self-confidence,
particularly his reference to a possible "rebellion" against the
House, has anything to do with the tens of thousands of jihad
warriors being formed by self-proclaimed "Defenders of Truth" in
East Java and Medan, North Sumatra, in support of the President,
to defend him against attempts to impeach him.

By definition, any compromise never satisfies anyone. Yet it
is the best and the most that can result from a negotiation
between the parties involved.

A compromise, and thus reconciliation, may be possible only if
the four leaders are motivated by common concern with the
interest of the nation as a whole as its foundation. And the
immediate interest of the nation at this crucial and dangerous
stage is the prevention of escalating social conflicts that pose
a real threat to national unity, and thus the nation's very
survival.

A compromise is possible also if all the parties involved are
ready and willing to make sacrifices in the pursuit of their
common interests. They must be prepared to sacrifice their
personal interests and those of their groups, however defined, at
least for the time being.

In fact, they would be able to serve these interests precisely
in their efforts to serve their common interests, which are the
interests of the nation as a whole. Surely, however, personal and
group interests are valid as long as they form part of the wider
interest of the nation, at least not contrary to the general
interest.

Otherwise, such interests that may be contrary to humanity or
universal human values like equality, justice and basic human
rights, may not be pursued by abusing democratic process and
democratic mechanism.

The top national leadership should realize the gravity of the
current situation. The country is on the verge of collapse and
destruction. Thus the stakes of the current crisis are so great
as to be worth the sacrifices. Otherwise, it is always the common
people, especially the poor, the weak and the marginalized, who
pay the price.

Fear of the threat or use of violence, however, should not
dictate a compromise. It should not be a compromise reached under
duress. Such a compromise would have no lasting value, for once
the threat of force or violence was gone, the compromise would be
discarded.

Moreover, a compromise under the threat of force would
virtually mean justifying and giving way to the use or threat of
violence. Democratic process should not knuckle under the threat
of force, for the threat or use of force is against democratic
ideals.

On the other hand, politicians should be honest enough to
realize that either directly or consciously or otherwise, in one
way or another, they also play a part in encouraging the use of
violence by their unwise remarks and behavior. Therefore, they
should also share the responsibility for the current tendency to
resort to mass violence.

Indeed, the whole nation is still in the early process of
democratization through a long, rough and winding road.
Indonesians are still learning to listen to criticism, to differ
with one another, and to accept political defeat with grace, and
to win political victory with magnanimity.

We have opted for a democratic system despite its high price
and its inefficiency, because the system respects human rights.
A political compromise among the top leadership would not in
itself be a guarantee for a quick recovery from the crisis.

Given the absence of violence or a serious threat of violence,
however, it would ensure the continuation of the reform process
toward a healthier democratic life and good governance, which
would lead eventually to recovery from the crisis.

The apparent threat of violence posed by the formation of
special forces in support and in defense of President Abdurrahman
should not constitute pressure on his political opponents.

On the contrary, it may bring pressure to bear on the
President himself toward his realization of the acute danger the
turn of events poses to the nation, not just to his position.

Therefore the most important form of compromise should be
incumbent upon the President's own initiative to step down for
the sake of the unity, integrity and the survival of the nation.

This scenario, however, as many that have come to know him
would probably agree, is the least likely.

The second best option would be the strengthening of the
position and powers vested in Vice President Megawati. The
overpowering President may likely hinder even this.

Under a parliamentary system, a prime minister would dissolve
parliament and decide on a fresh election to win a new mandate of
the people. Under the 1945 Constitution of this country, this
should be a decision made by the Assembly.

That choice would be very costly in a number of ways. However,
an election would be the proper entry point into further process
of democratization.

It would be a choice better understood by the international
community. This would better ensure Indonesia's credibility,
which the nation badly needs for recovery, than resorting to
narrow nationalistic slogans.

And the whole process, hopefully, would help our politicians
realize the urgent need for a constitutional change. Otherwise,
the vague and ambiguous nature of the current Constitution would
again lead to continuous bickering among politicians.

The writer is a political analyst based in Jakarta.