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.