End of an era?

End of an era?

The removal of President Abdurrahman Wahid by Indonesia's
highest policy-making body, the People's Consultative Assembly
(MPR), in a Special Session on Monday has brought to a close one
of the most extraordinary episodes in contemporary Indonesian
history.

A highly respected moderate Muslim scholar known for his
inclusive and democratic ideas, Abdurrahman "Gus Dur" Wahid rose
to become Indonesia's fourth president in more than half a
century on Oct. 20, 1999.

While it may be true that Gus Dur won the position through
skillful maneuvering helped by -- or, as some analysts prefer to
see it, by taking advantage of the sentiments of -- a coalition
of Muslim legislators and a faction within the erstwhile ruling
Golkar Party, it is equally true that Gus Dur seemed at that time
the only presidential candidate acceptable to all.

His track record as a modern intellectual and a fighter for
democracy was long and impressive. He rode the wave of popular
demand for clean governance and democratic reform that swept the
country at the end of the more than three decades of
authoritarian rule under two of his predecessors, Indonesia's
founding president Sukarno and Soeharto.

And although the democratic reform that he brought with him
into his administration had already been introduced by his
immediate predecessor, BJ Habibie, it was to Gus Dur whom the
public looked for laying a firm groundwork on which a truly
modern democratic society could be built.

Early in his administration it looked as if indeed the Gus Dur
administration would mark the beginning of an era of democracy,
and with it clean government, in Indonesia. To mention just a few
examples, it was under Gus Dur's administration that the military
first openly accepted civilian control and transformed itself
from a tool of those in power to that of the nation and the
state.

It was Gus Dur who, immediately after he settled into the
presidential palace, began to purge it and the presidential
offices of the air of regal grandeur under which they had existed
for so many decades.

On a less serious note, the jesting, witty remarks that often
interspersed his speeches dealing with even such serious subjects
as Cabinet changes and matters of government policy brought a
refreshing air of informality into the institutions of state.

He refused to be addressed as "Mr. President", choosing
instead to be known simply as Gus Dur. And -- aside from whether
or not such views could even be mentioned in the current
political context -- who but Gus Dur would have the courage to
propose the opening of relations with Israel and recognizing the
basic right of communists in Indonesia to reorganize.

In a way, therefore, Gus Dur's departure from the Indonesian
political stage is a regrettable reality that has been forced on
the nation by subsequent developments. More and more in the later
stages of his administration, Gus Dur displayed an alarming
tendency to make erratic and arbitrary policy decisions and make
statements that invited controversy.

All there is left to say at this point is that had Gus Dur
listened to good advice and stepped down voluntarily as the
situation demanded, the Indonesian nation would still have
recognized in him the highly respected moral leader it so much
needs at this crucial stage of its history.

We are sorry he didn't. Even so, the nation continues to owe
it to itself to pay Abdurrahman Wahid the respect he deserves.
Perhaps, if a lesson is to be drawn from Gus Dur's most current
experience, it is to reflect on how power can alter even the most
principled of individuals and that therefore, in any democratic
society, constitutional controls are absolutely necessary.