Egoism a hindrance to progress in reform

Egoism a hindrance to progress in reform

Mashudi Noorsalim, The RIDEP Institute, Jakarta

After four years of a civilian government, the civil society
movement has not shown signs of progress. It is even further
weakening and increasingly divided -- while the military
hardliners, particularly the army, is growing stronger.

The appointment of Maj. Gen. Syafrie Syamsoeddin as spokesman
for the Indonesian Military (TNI) is evidence of the
strengthening hardline military influence on the power elite.

Some government measures connected with military policy have
aroused controversy. For instance, the government insisted on the
reestablishment of Aceh's Iskandar Muda regional military
command, despite observers' arguments about its negative impact.
Their view that the move had no benefit at all in terms of
politics, defense, finance or judicial administration, let alone
the dialog to end violence in Aceh, was ignored.

Other signs of increasing military clout include the earlier
rejection of several generals to obey the summons of the
Commission of Inquiry into Human Rights Violation (KPP HAM)
during the 1999 Trisakti and Semanggi I and Semanggi II incidents
the transfer of some high ranking Army officers, the postponed
appointment of the TNI commander and the recent ransacking of the
office of Kontras (Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of
Violence) which some suspect is related to the trial of military
members in alleged human rights violations in East Timor.

Compared with the situation in the New Order period, there has
been a shift in the pattern of military ploys to dominate the
political scene.

First, military personnel no longer strive to occupy important
government positions like governor, regent, etc.

Second, the TNI tends to avoid open conflicts with other
groups in the legislature.

In the heat of public debates, the military prefers to remain
silent. TNI abstained in the voting to set up the inquiry
committee for the Bulog-I scam that eventually led to the ouster
of president Abdurrahman Wahid.

Third, the military is now capable of benefiting from national
political issues. The above controversial moves were taken when
public attention was focused, among others, on the graft case of
Akbar Tandjung, the splits within several major parties, and
differences between Cabinet members concerning economic policies.

Fourth, a number of open minded officers with the potential to
launch internal reforms within TNI are being transferred to less
vital posts.

In a democratic political system, political parties are
institutions that represent civilian communities in the
legislature. Though Indonesia is not yet fully democratic, at the
start of the reform period there were apparent attempts to build
pillars of democracy like political parties, a system of open and
fair elections, democratic legislation and freedom of public
access to information.

Such efforts, however, were only formalities. Parties have
rather become a means to gain power. Party cadre recruitment is
an example. None of the existing parties have become "modern"
political parties. Most still manage their organizations
traditionally or even primordially, relying on certain figures
and using religious jargon to strengthen the bond with the
masses.

The nation still hopes that the role of non-governmental
organizations (NGOs), intellectuals and student movements can
make an impact on real reform. Unfortunately, this second group
is facing a serious problem. For nearly four years now, it has
been unable to undertake effective activities due to several
weaknesses.

First, organizational management and administration remain
weak. Most NGOs and student movements lack people with
professional management skills to run their organizations. They
often resemble units of concept formulators without anyone who is
capable of implementing the ideas. They rely heavily on people
with name recognition rather than on modern organizational
structures. This situation leads to weak organizational
accountability, and is taken advantage of by pro-status quo
groups.

Second, egoism remains very dominant among the "democratic
forces." Almost all NGOs and student movements share the same
objective, to build democracy and civilian supremacy, but each
considers itself morally superior than the others, preventing
cohesiveness.

Student movements compete for claims as to who played the
major role in bringing down Soeharto in May 1998. The student
movements continue to fabricate rumors to discredit each other,
which completely weakens their common agenda in safeguarding
democratization.

Third, such weaknesses among NGOs and students cause
vulnerability to the fast changing political conditions. Many
NGOs and student movements are splitting up due to discord.
Instead of growing in quality and in numbers, they are turning
into smaller groups, more widely scattered and without proper
coordination.

Pro-democracy movements are in a serious quandary -- while
pro-status quo and representatives of military forces are
increasingly vigorous. Expectations to create a democratic state
will likely never be fulfilled.

International pressure used to be a supporting factor for the
growth of civilian power in Indonesia. The world community aided
civilian groups in the form of funds for research, advocacy,
training and education.

Politically, the world donors also insisted that the
government observe human rights in Indonesia. Nonetheless, since
Sept. 11 the world community, particularly the U.S., has shifted
its focus toward the eradication of terrorism. This change in
international focus will indirectly affect pro-democracy
movements. Regarding Indonesia, the U.S. will prioritize military
assistance to combat terrorism, compared to aid for pro-democracy
civilian movements.

This situation indicates that movements for democracy should
be fostered by the civilians themselves instead of merely relying
on international support and merely expecting the status quo and
military influence to weaken.

These movements must be able to unite under a joint agenda to
boost the spirit of democracy. Their first priorities should be
to improve organizational management and to rid themselves of
egoism.