Democratic process always slow in any country

A number of politically-charged events occurring these days have left the public wondering: Has there been a rift among the political elite? And what about the appearances of covert notes with racial overtone? Political scientist Amir Santoso grabs these questions.

JAKARTA (JP): Pamphlets were reported to have been circulating last week among members of the Chinese community, warning them to expect anti-Chinese demonstrations. As a consequence fear prevailed among the Chinese and the incident was reported in places as far as Hong Kong.

As it turned out, it was a false alarm. Up to this day no activity of this kind whatsoever has occurred. The question which the incident provokes, however, is: Who circulated the leaflets, and why?

Lately, the intra-elite conflict in this country has become more apparent. Although the attempt was aborted, there were public figures who sponsored and supported the establishment of ICKI (Indonesian Association of Nationalist Intellectuals) to counter the already existing ICMI (Indonesian Association of Moslem Intellectuals). Then there were arguments about the cost of German warships. One cabinet minister vowed he had no intention of taking any financial advantage from the purchase of the warships. Another said the cost of the ships was too high.

This kind of intra-elite rivalry is not actually new. Politics in Indonesia is a contest between political streams. In 1952 NU (Nahdlatul Ulama) broke away from the Moslem party Masjumi because of a conflict between the traditionalist NU and the modernist Moslems in the Masjumi. Up to 1965, before it was disbanded, the Communist Party could never get along with either the Socialist Party nor with Murba, one of the streamings in the socialist camp at that time. The nationalists also came in various groups.

Thus, the rivalry between the Moslems and nationalists which is now occurring constitutes a repetition of the old pattern. The difference is that the prevalence of press freedom causes the conflict to become more transparent.

Of course there are also other interest groups who are taking part in the contest for a slice of the political pie pending the 1997 elections. These could be categorized in the pro- and anti- government groups.

The anti-government advocates hold the objective of replacing Soeharto on the reasoning that he holds responsibility for the impairment of human rights and democracy. They also blame the government for the gap which they perceive between the rich and the poor.

The final issue is one that can arouse the public emotions the easiest because it concerns realities that are immediately perceptible.

If the Chinese minority becomes an object of anti-government activities the reason is actually not that they are Chinese, but rather because they are a group of wealthy people living amidst a majority of people who are poor and are treated with a certain degree of injustice by the bureaucracy.

The anti-Chinese activities are intended to cause distress among Chinese businessmen and foreign investors. If a considerable amount of capital, owned by the Chinese, flees overseas and foreign investors cease their investments in Indonesia, monetary instability would result and the regime would be easier to replace.

This scenario and other plans to upset stability are of course known to the government apparatus. It can therefore be understood that the government has again put checks on the freedom that has been granted. Quite possibly the government will take tougher action against demonstrations and other activities that are organized in the name of democracy. Possibly the same will hold true with regard to the mass media.

Those who agree with the government's attitude are of the view that some of the mass media and the students have tended to misuse the freedom that has been given by the government to undermine the government's authority and provoke the masses into opposing the government.

I personally have long since warned student activists against this kind of possibility. I have told them that the government will not tolerate demonstrations that could upset stability and security in our society. The political cost that would have to be paid would be too high.

I told them that if they persisted the possibility could not be overlooked that some of the freedoms that have been granted in stages would be retracted. If this should happen, the democratization process would suffer a setback and they would be among the losers.

For that reason it is necessary that all parties involved exercise restraint and act maturely. I would wish that the government authorities could display a greater understanding towards the demands of demonstrators.

On the other hand I would also like to appeal for restraint on the part of the public so that people will not let themselves be swept by their emotions and be made to drift into currents that are caused by interest groups with political interests of their own.

Democracy is not only a problem of how to express our demands but also of how to express them in an orderly manner. The democratic process, anywhere, is always slow -- slower than a radical authoritarian one. Democrats, therefore, are usually possessed of a greater sense of patience and maturity than those who are authoritarian in character.

The prevalence of peace, order and stability thus depend on the government's ability to govern properly, and on the willingness of the people to transmit their aspirations in an orderly manner.

The writer is professor of political science at the University of Indonesia.