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.