Expediting reform

Expediting reform

After two days of relative calm, students in various cities
across Indonesia returned to the streets yesterday to voice their
discontent over the economic and political situation and to
demand change. Judging by the current prevailing mood of the
students, a growing number of intellectuals and some other
elements of society, it appears that -- barring any unforeseen
developments -- no speedy end can be expected to the massive
nationwide demonstrations.

Olive branches held out by the government and the military in
the form of promises for gradual, constitutional reform have
failed to blunt the students' defiance or demands for
comprehensive political and economic reforms. So have warnings of
tough action by the police and military and the death of at least
four people so far -- two alleged rioters in Medan, one bystander
caught in a student-police skirmish in Yogyakarta and a police
intelligence officer in Bogor. Calls for patience and the
preservation of the country's political stability, made by
President Soeharto shortly before departing for Cairo on Sunday
to attend the G-15 summit, have gone unheeded.

Given the government's apparent sincerity in promising
reforms, one might indeed question the chances of ever
reconciling the two opposing parties in the discord. After all,
President Soeharto indicated a certain sense of urgency when,
shortly before his departure for Cairo, he said he hoped that
everything would go well during his absence, "especially the work
on reform".

The general chairman of the dominant Golkar political group,
House of Representatives Speaker Harmoko, told the media last
week that Golkar and the legislature were prepared to discuss not
only a review of the political laws, but a two-term limitation of
the presidential term of office -- a subject that would have been
taboo only a few months ago. What more could the government
critics want?

In abstract, there appears to be no longer any difference
between the government and the students about the need for
reform. However, at least two separate but interrelated major
obstacles are in the way of a speedy accord. One concerns the
problem of interpretation. The students and other critics of the
government suspect, and not without reason, that "reform" as it
is understood by those in power, constitutes something different
and far short from what government critics have in mind.

Achieving a meaningful democratic improvement in the workings
of the government is a daunting undertaking that would affect
almost every aspect of governance. It is also one that observers
insist must include a revamping of the organizational structure
and workings of Golkar. Both are assignments that would certainly
not go unopposed.

The other major obstacle concerns the problem of confidence in
the government, or rather the lack of it. At this point in the
crisis, government critics are inclined to disbelieve almost
anything the authorities say. It may take no less than a daring
act of accommodation on the part of the government to close the
gap and build an effective bridge toward establishing a mutual
understanding. A cabinet reshuffle that accommodates some of the
students' aspirations, to name an example, might in this context
be a judicious step to take.

If further violence and acts of destruction are to be avoided,
some sort of compromise may be necessary. To be effective for
more than the immediate short term, however, it must be a
compromise that gives the assurance of greater democratic reform
in the immediate future.