'Djuanda model' may be suitable for today's Indonesia: Legge

'Djuanda model' may be suitable for today's Indonesia: Legge

The endless political tumult has placed Vice President
Megawati Sukarnoputri in the spotlight and with it a resurging
interest in her father, Sukarno, the late first president of
Indonesia.

John Legge, former professor of history at Monash University,
dean of the Faculty of Arts, spoke to The Jakarta Post's
contributor Dewi Anggraeni in Melbourne, about Sukarno. Prof.
Legge is the author of A Biography of Sukarno, first published in
1972 and a second edition was brought out in 1985.

Question: To have written a biography of Sukarno you must have
observed his life in great detail. How would you describe
Sukarno?

Answer: The book was written shortly after the change of
regime from Sukarno to Soeharto. It was written very much against
the background of guided democracy. I argue in the book that
Sukarno had three periods during which he made history by
grasping the initiative and changing the course of events.

What periods are they?

The first of these was in the late 1920s as chairman of the
Indonesian National Party (PNI). He made lots of speeches,
traveled around Java talking about nationalism as the uniting
ideological theme. He was able to bring together other streams of
nationalism like Islam and Marxism. He was a very visible figure
developing a nationalist ideology. That period came to an end
with his arrest and imprisonment.

The second was the period of Japanese occupation. The Dutch
called him a Japanese collaborator, but I think in reality he was
fairly effective in manipulating the occupying government to look
favorably on his nationalist stance. He developed his well-known
presence through his access to radio, and he used this privilege
in a clever way. He spoke somewhat ambiguously, in ways
understood by his listeners but not by the Japanese.

Did he ever make a blunder, something not uncommon in an
uncertain era?

There were questionable parts in this period, for instance his
acceptance of recruiting romusha laborers. He had to tread very
carefully during the period of Japanese occupation.

What is the third period?

The third period is 1957-1959, when constitutional democracy
had largely broken down. Before 1957 there had been short-lived
governments, weak coalitions, regional revolts.

He stepped forward outside the Constitution, formed a
government. As he put it, "President Sukarno has commissioned
citizen Sukarno to form a government". That was the government of
Djuanda.

During the next two years, he gradually moved toward
abolishing, by decree, the 1950 Provisional Constitution, and
returned to the Constitution of 1945. This was the beginning of
guided democracy.

There are some disagreements about the degree to which this
was due to his own initiatives and how much it was Nasution's or
the Army's.

What do you think?

My view is that there was a bit of both. Sukarno did take a
leading role, but he did this with the agreement of Nasution and
the Army's leadership, and with their aid. Of course this created
a very strong presidency.

Under the 1950 Constitution he had been a figurehead
president. The 1945 Constitution placed a great deal of power in
the hands of the president.

Over the next few years the Communist Party became bigger and
stronger. Sukarno had no real power base of his own so he had to
operate a bit like Gus Dur does now, within the framework of
contending political pressures, the Army being one and the PKI
(Indonesian Communist Party) another. So Sukarno had to balance
these two. I see him during that period as responding to events
rather than making them.

So I see these periods as being the time when he changed
things. During the first two he was more powerful, after that
things got a little out of hand, right up until the events of
1965, when Soeharto stepped in, and with Supersemar (the order
signed by Sukarno on March 11, 1966), delegated authority to
Soeharto so the latter could take action himself. Sukarno however
remained president formally until 1968, when Soeharto became
officially president.

So from 1959 onwards he began to lose his grip on power?

He was president during the period of guided democracy, but
it was a very fragile and divided political situation, in which
you can say nobody had a real grip on power.

Do you think it was a mistake of Sukarno's to attempt to bring
these unlikely forces together?

Well, he didn't have a choice. That was the way the political
balance was at that time.

Where did he go wrong, or how did he misjudge the situation?

I wouldn't say that it was a matter of going wrong or a case
of misjudgement. After Independence, Indonesian politics became
very volatile.

There were a whole series of governments under the provisional
constitution, the coalitions were largely between Masyumi and
PNI. Nobody had dominant power. It was a matter of compromise.

Sukarno felt that a return to the 1945 Constitution would make
for a stronger presidency and he would have greater authority to
control the situation. Having done that, things didn't improve
much. To stop the Army and the PKI from openly clashing, Sukarno
waged large nationalist campaigns, first against the Dutch in
West Irian, and then against the new state of Malaysia.

But those were economically costly and resulted in hyper-
inflation. Indonesians claimed to feel that Sukarno was too
tolerant of inflation and of economic decline.
Is there anything that Sukarno did that may be relevant to
today's situation?
In 1957 Sukarno appointed Djuanda as prime minister. The
government was effectively run by the prime minister and the
Cabinet. Last year Gus Dur (as President Abdurrahman Wahid is
affectionately called) did suggest something of that kind, when
he suggested that Megawati be responsible for running the
government while he remained President.

That didn't work out. In reality the Djuanda model might be
appropriate for Indonesia considering Gus Dur's present state.

Can you see some parallels between Sukarno and Gus Dur?

There may be more significant parallels between their
situations, rather than between them as individuals. Soeharto had
the army behind him. Both Sukarno and Abdurrahman Wahid have had
to deal with volatile political situations. Neither of them could
really be on top, having to cope with a variety of political
pressures, regional ambitions and resistance.

Sukarno had to handle resistance from North Sumatra and North
Sulawesi while today Gus Dur has to find solutions for Aceh and
West Papua.

Where were Islamic groups during the Sukarno days?

In the fifties there were Masyumi and Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) as
the two major Muslim parties, in addition to some other minor
ones. They were part of 'the big four' which emerged from the
1955 election.

In the 1960s, Masyumi, having become involved in regional
revolt and subsequently outlawed, was virtually out of the
picture.

During the period of guided democracy, the power of the Army
and the PKI became greater than that of political parties.

Would you say Islamic groups were disenfranchised at that
time?

I would say it was pretty close in the case of Masyumi, but NU
continued to play a role.

And they were disenfranchised again during Soeharto's rule?

Yes. Soeharto's government was basically a military regime.
Initially Soeharto was concerned with development, but over time
he became much more authoritarian. Everybody was disenfranchised.

Are there parallels or contrasts between Sukarno and Soeharto?

Apart from the fact that they are both Javanese, they are not
alike. Soeharto took power from Sukarno with the backing of the
military. Sukarno never had the chance to do that, so he had to
control the situation through political maneuvers. That was very
unlike Soeharto. And in policy terms Sukarno was uninterested in
pursuing an adequate economic policy, unlike Soeharto in the
early years of his rule.

Would you say that the disenfranchisement of Islamic groups
during Sukarno and Soeharto has something to do with the current
national crisis?

Yes. The banning of Masyumi removed its members from power
entirely, but the values they represented are still around.

Do you see Sukarno as a person who was able to invoke or evoke
patriotism in Indonesia?

I would say that he was very important in emphasizing and
keeping alive the idea of an Indonesian nation. Some would argue
that Indonesia is not naturally a nation, considering its ethnic,
geographical and economic diversity. Yet we have a perception of
a nation.

Has that kind of sentiment, a perception of belonging to a
nation, now faded?

I don't think so. Indonesia is really a manufactured nation,
or to use Benedict Anderson's term, it had to be "imagined" as a
community. Sukarno's contribution was to stress the idea of
nationalism and to keep alive the perception of an independent
nation.

If you could say it in several sentences, what do you see as
the core problems that may cause the disintegration of Indonesia?

Apart from regional differences that have always been there,
the authoritarian nature of Soeharto's rule has naturally
generated the ideas of reformasi (political reform). What we see
now is the reaction against years of Soeharto's rule.