Concerns about reform

The latest contribution to our rapidly expanding public discourse on the need for reform has come this week from the respected Moslem intellectual Nurcholish Madjid. Known for his preference for measuredly candid arguments but nonetheless never one to beat around the bush where matters of principle are concerned, Nurcholish told a seminar on good governance held in Jakarta Tuesday that this nation must be willing to engage in radical political and economic reform if it is to lift itself from the present monetary crisis.

We would be successful in salvaging our economy only if we took fundamental measures to settle the crisis and abandon the current model of state leadership, Nurcholish told participants. Good governance, he said, could not be established upon a person's goodwill. There must be transparency in the implementation of all policies as well as social control by the people.

If doubts exist about the objectivity of Nurcholish Madjid's observation, attention may be drawn to similar remarks made earlier by Miriam Budiardjo, who is one of this country's most senior political scientists. Exhorting the empowerment of the country's legislative institutions -- the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) and the House of Representatives (DPR) -- to revive an ailing political system, she said Indonesians should now undertake to restore their political life as they had already done in the economic sector.

Citing the American political scientist Peter H. Merkle, who noted that politics has both its positive and negative sides, Miriam said that in order to prevent the misuse of power, a concept of political accountability had to be established. In the case of Indonesia, the control mechanism for this lies with the MPR and the DPR. Unfortunately, both institutions are generally regarded by the public as lacking in efficacy. As a consequence, many issues that should properly be deliberated in a general forum are decided by ministers, governors and other government officials. This increases the scope of power of the executive bodies and reduces government accountability and transparency.

In Miriam Budiardjo's case, there can be no reason to doubt the trustworthiness of her observations as they were made in an academic speech when she received an honorary doctorate degree from the prestigious University of Indonesia. As anyone who has been following the news must know, her reasons are not the only arguments for political and economic reform that have been made recently. Newspapers in this country have been filled with reports and articles by leading Indonesians urging reform during the past few weeks.

It is certainly no coincidence that the growing public calls for political reform should be gaining in strength during these times of monetary turmoil. As the current crisis proceeds with no hope or sign of abating any time soon, it is becoming more and more clear to many Indonesians that economic and monetary decisions are not taken in a political void. For the average Indonesian who stands to lose the most, it is becoming increasingly frustrating to observe that, being outside of the decision-making process, there is nothing whatsoever he or she can do to influence the course of developments.

If anything good has come out of the present crisis, it may be the growing comprehension that the need for accountability and transparency in government is no longer a choice, but a reality -- that is, if we are aspiring to become a modern nation capable of standing on par with other members of the global community.

What the current crisis has taught us is that certain aspects of our societal and political life have now become obsolete. Surely this is a goal that can be achieved without sacrificing the stability of our country. It is to be hoped that the lesson will be taken to heart.