Elite row shows political immaturity

Elite row shows political immaturity

By Setiono

JAKARTA (JP): We all recall the close ties between Abdurrahman
Wahid and reformist Amien Rais before they were elected to top
positions of the country. Both expressed deep concern over the
chaotic political situation at that time, and vowed to walk hand
in hand to create a new Indonesia (Indonesia Baru) if the people
entrusted them to lead the country.

They also extended their willingness to collaborate to solve
the myriad of problems the country was facing and to promote
democracy. They talked about upholding justice, enforcing the
law, as well as eradicating corruption, collision and nepotism,
which were rampant during the authoritarian and repressive New
Order regime.

However, when their dreams came true, things seemingly did not
turn out as people expected. The legacies that the New Order had
left behind still flourish, injustices still prevail everywhere,
and, if anything, the crisis has multiplied, leaving the common
people to face uncertainty and a bleak future. The worst is that
our country is facing a threat of national disintegration.

Ironically, when the nation is faced with multidimensional
crises, the political elites, whom the people have put their
hopes on, are busy bickering and finding fault with each other.

The Axis Force (a loose coalition between the National Mandate
Party and a number of small Islamic parties), that played a key
role in putting Abdurrahman Wahid (also known as Gus Dur) into
the presidential post, has expressed its regret in appointing the
President and has, in fact, withdrawn its support.

Upon evaluating that the President has failed in his tasks to
carry out the mandate assigned by the People's Consultative
Assembly and the House of Representatives, the members of the
Axis Force have called on him to step down.

Gus Dur's rejection of the two nominated chief justices
proposed by the legislature ignited further conflict with the
House. The House accuses the President of violating the
Constitution if the latter turns down the former's proposal.
Furthermore, Gus Dur's refusal not to fulfill the summoning of
the House's special committee on Buloggate and Bruneigate has
indeed worsened the relationship between the two.

The seemingly never-ending disputes among the political elites
have shown us a great deal, that in politics there are no
permanent friends, there are no permanent enemies, but there is
only one permanent interest.

Gus Dur's government is indeed facing many destructive
challenges from his political foes, who ambitiously try to topple
his regime. Gus Dur even blatantly spoke out that those in the
legislature are among the ones who eagerly try to unseat him from
his presidency.

Gus Dur seems to have sensed the political maneuvers planned
by his political opponents. He is also probably aware of the fact
that there seems to be a high-class conspiracy among the House
commission to revive the practice of the old regime system.

The House's attempt to position Gus Dur in a dilemmatic
situation to endorse one of the two chief justice nominees
(either Muladi or Bagir Manan), both of whom are believed to be
loyalist of the New Order, is clearly a maneuver to corner him.

The commission's refusal to hold another selection process for
new candidates, and its threat to reject every proposal made by
the President, shows political arrogance. Gus Dur's rejection of
the two chief justice candidates from Golkar is naturally not
unreasonable.

The temporal vacuum of the Supreme Court is deemed by many as
the best option rather than being led by an unsuitable person.
Learning from past and present experiences where injustice still
prevails and law enforcement authorities lack the courage to take
legal action, Gus Dur is on the right track when he cautiously
mulls the appointment of a chief justice from nominations made by
Golkar.

Numerous cases of human rights violations inherited from the
New Order such as the massacre of Muslim radicals in Tanjung
Priok in 1984, the bloody takeover of the PDI headquarters in
1996 and the killing of Marsinah (an East Java worker), just to
mention a few, seem to have become matters of complete
indifference by the law authorities.

While these cases remain unresolved and are not successfully
brought to trial, other human rights violations are added. The
bloody bombings on Christmas Eve that claimed many lives and the
attacks of places of entertainments in Kemang, South Jakarta,
indicate a lawlessness in the country.

Moreover, the Supreme Court's inability to put former
president Soeharto's youngest son, Tommy Soeharto (who has been
declared a fugitive), in jail has continuously made newspaper
headlines. This has tarnished the image of the Supreme Court and
has caused Indonesia's judiciary system to lose credibility in
the eyes of the public, not to mention the world.

Interestingly, none of these cases has attracted and urged the
legislature to establish another House commission to deal with
these crucial matters. Instead, they are engrossed in probing the
incumbent President's scandals and harshly criticizing and even
condemning the President's performance. However, there are ample
crucial matters that escape their attention.

If the legislature managed to establish a special commission
for Buloggate or Bruneigate, then the question would be why is
there no similar legal action taken to form a Bombinggate, a
Soehartogate, a Tanjung Priokgate, or whatever "gate", for the
considered lawless?.

At this point, it is relevant to cite George J. Aditjondro's
assertion that "the allegations aimed at Gus Dur's inner circle
are only political football, since those who accused the
President of corruption, collusion and nepotism are themselves
covering up corruption, collusion and nepotism in their own
ranks." (The Jakarta Post, Jan. 10, 2001).

The persistent and never-ending disputes among the political
elites reflect the immaturity in running politics. The euphoria
of the country's democracy has been fallaciously misinterpreted
by those who are naive and immature in practicing politics.

To them, democracy is simply seen as a method rather than a
value. The term democracy has been notoriously perceived as a
means of freedom in expressing one's own interests. Thus, the
mass mobilization by Gus Dur supporters and opponents that was
rumored to happen on Jan. 15 in Jakarta was actually the result
of the naive interpretation of democracy.

In a critical period of political uncertainty, where social
unrest and conflicts with religious overtones become rampant,
followed by the unabating conflict of political elites, the role
of impartial intellectuals in providing mature political
education to the public, specifically at grassroots level, is
imperative.

Since democracy is an on-going process of learning that
involves the exercising of morality, political education is not
the sole concern of the political leaders or politicians. It has
been suggested that political education should not been assigned
as a structural and a bureaucratic task, which does not have any
concerns toward the importance of the society's political
education.

Proportionally, political education is an intellectual and
noble task and can only be executed by intellectuals who are free
from political interests. Mature political education aims at
providing rational and intellectual perspectives closely related
with human's attitude in their life.

An intellectual may, for example, encourage the public, the
political leaders or even the nation's top leaders to seek
solutions by sitting down together rather than by mobilizing
their supporters.

It is now high time to set an agenda for society's political
education. In this case, the press may also take part in
promoting and campaigning the importance of political education
in our politically sick society. In so doing, the political
illiteracies that our nation is suffering can be remedied.

The writer is a teaching staff member of the School of
Education, Atma Jaya Catholic University, Jakarta.