Debate may ease political tensions

Debate may ease political tensions

By Aleksius Jemadu

BANDUNG (JP): Government officials and political analysts have
reacted in different ways since Adi Sasono, secretary-general of
the Association of Indonesian Moslem Intellectuals (ICMI), put
forward his idea on the urgency of national dialog, which was
elaborated on by Amien Rais, the leader of the 28 million-strong
Muhammadiyah Moslem organization.

As far as the government is concerned, the response is mixed
and somewhat ambiguous. Armed Forces Chief of Sociopolitical
Affairs, Lt. Gen. Yunus Yosfiah, for instance, ventured that the
proposal would be welcomed as long as it was aimed at securing
the economy and not creating instability.

Minister/State Secretary Moerdiono argued that the dialog
could not solve the current crisis (Kompas, Jan. 10, 1998). In
general, political analysts supported Amien's idea on the grounds
the government could tap aspirations from society for a common
strategy to get out of the political and economic deadlock.

It is clear Amien would prefer that this dialog involve all
parties, both inside and outside the ruling circle. In fact,
Amien invited Megawati Soekarnoputri, the ousted leader of the
Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI), and Abdurrahman Wahid, the
chairman of the 30 million-strong Nahdlatul Ulama Moslem
organization, to join hands in a coalition calling for political
reform. It was argued that such a coalition could represent a
broad political spectrum as it would consist of nationalists and
both traditional and modern Moslems.

Amien's call for dialog was made amid widespread doubt about
the government's ability to bring an end to the economic crisis.
On top of this is a common perception that the contributing
depreciation of the rupiah against the greenback has less to do
with the nation's economic fundamentals than with the workability
of the governing system.

People are particularly concerned over the absence of
steadfast national leadership and functional coordination among
top government officials. Recent panic buying is believed to have
been partly due to the public's confusion after contradictory
statements from officials about national rice stocks.

It is undeniable that the political temperature is on the rise
prior to March's presidential election.

Unfortunately, the governing elite seem to be unprepared to
establish more transparent regeneration of national leadership.
"The system of national succession is uncertain... we do not
know how it works," Abdurrahman Wahid was quoted as saying in the
Jan. 10 edition of The Jakarta Post.

Compounding this is the fact that mass organizations with
considerable influence in society have been conditioned to be
peripheral players in what is glibly known as the "succession
game". No wonder that politicians with considerable popularity,
like Amien Rais and Megawati Soekarnoputri, have tossed their
hats into the ring.

Moreover, the Indonesian Armed Forces (ABRI) has appeared to
be more open and willing to discuss national problems with
civilian political forces.

ABRI formerly maintained "the politics of wanting to be above
politics", but now it tends to promote "the politics of becoming
an equal partner of other political forces". This change of
orientation is believed to be part of ABRI's institutional
adjustments in coping with global democratization.

It seems there are more questions than answers the closer we
get to the election. Statements from top government officials
have turned out to be a source of confusion among the general
public, structurally alienated from political processes.

From a realist perspective, political ambiguity can be
manipulated as an instrument to conceal a self-serving political
agenda.

In Javanese culture, politicians are supposed to conceal their
actual ambition in order to establish social harmony. It is
therefore advisable not to make a judgement about a political
situation based on verbal statements from government officials.
What matters most are their actions, or inaction.

As the government has turned out to be the main agent of
social and political changes, it also monopolizes the flow of
information in society. The dominant position of bureaucrats in
producing social change has led to a situation in which the
government is the only legitimate source of information.

The recent banning of performances in Surabaya and Bandung of
a play on murdered labor activist Marsinah is a case in point.
The government has seemingly imposed its interpretation of the
story upon society. Many would agree with Golkar cadres from the
Multipurpose Cooperative of Mutual Assistance (Kosgoro), who
reportedly criticized the government for monopolizing the truth
and controlling interpretative rights on political and state
affairs (The Jakarta Post, Dec. 30, 1997).

Taking into account the seemingly closed information system of
the succession game and more accommodative attitude of ABRI, the
call for a national dialog to end the current crisis should be
welcomed. It should be emphasized, however, that all dialog
partners should put national and common interests above their
respective partisan aspirations.

This dialog could ease political tensions prior to
presidential election and strengthen national unity. Neither the
government nor any single political group in society could solve
the current crisis alone. Instead, why not sit down together and
start discussing the way out of this crisis?

The writer is director of the Parahyangan Center of
International Studies (PACIS) at UNPAR, Bandung. He is also a
lecturer in the School of International Relations at the same
university.