Fate of reform 'must override' Gus Dur's presidency

Fate of reform 'must override' Gus Dur's presidency

What choice is left after the issuing of a memorandum by the
House of Representatives (DPR), effectively a first warning to
President Abdurrahman "Gus Dur" Wahid to give him chance to
improve his performance in three month's time? Political observer
J. Soedjati Djiwandono thinks the choice is crystal clear.

JAKARTA (JP): Gus Dur will either carry on as president to the
end of his term but with greater possibility of impeachment --
which would not only mean a fall from grace for him, but more
importantly, almost certain social conflicts -- or gracefully
resign. His days as president have begun to be numbered.

So far, however, Gus Dur does not seem to realize the
magnitude of the emerging crisis. In response to the House
memorandum, he has publicly stated that he will not resign. On
the contrary, he seems determined to strike back with a
vengeance. He considered the possibility of dissolving the DPR.
Perhaps he was thinking of the late president Sukarno's decree of
1959 as a precedent, although its legal and constitutional basis
was doubtful.

The question of legal and constitutional basis aside, however,
Sukarno enjoyed the full backing of the armed forces. This time,
by contrast, Gus Dur did not get the support of the military,
particularly the Army, for such a course of action. Ironically,
ignoring political ethics, it was the Army chief of staff himself
that revealed publicly that the President had suggested such a
dictatorial act, and that the Army chief had advised against it.

It was a moment of truth that Gus Dur should have realized. He
has lost the support of all political parties, except the
National Awakening Party (PKB), which only has 50 seats in the
House. The small Love the Nation Democratic Party (PDKB) had
defended Gus Dur against the findings of the House's special
committee investigating the scandals, but in the end it approved
the memorandum. Thus, Gus Dur's presidency has lost its
credibility, but above all its legitimacy.

In the meantime, public support has obviously declined almost
to zero. Students and youth demonstrations were mounting,
demanding the President's resignation. This alone would increase
the threat of violent social conflicts.

To be sure, in theory, Gus Dur still has an opportunity to
improve his performance and that of his Cabinet. He still has an
opportunity to carry on the reform process, as he himself has
said he is determined to do without mercy.

Indeed, it was this writer's thesis in a previous contribution
to this column that Gus Dur should be allowed to carry on as
president to the end of his term so as to avoid social conflicts
or even a civil war. It would have been a choice of the lesser
evil.

Now, however, it is likely that Gus Dur will either be toppled
by impeachment or remain in power, and it is clear that short of
his resignation -- which remains unlikely given his well-known
stubbornness and increasing overconfidence to the point of
arrogance -- social conflicts are likely to ensue.

In fact, opposition against him has been accumulating almost
from the very start of his presidency. The Brunei and Bulog
scandals would wane in significance against some other issues of
corruption, collusion and nepotism (KKN), especially those
perpetrated by cronies of the New Order.

Yet, in the current climate of reform, they loom large,
particularly because they involve the most democratically elected
president of this country, known to be a consistent moral leader
committed to reform.

It is small wonder, therefore, that despite certain anomalies,
flaws, lack of ethics and the possibility of abuse of democratic
mechanism in the proceedings of the committee and the House as a
whole, they have been effectively used as Gus Dur's Achilles'
heel in their efforts to corner and ultimately, if successful, to
unseat him. Without the slightest intention at justification,
that forms part of the unfairness and cruelty of realpolitik.

Thus, should Gus Dur try to carry on as president, in one way
or another, the majority of the House members would try to be in
the way. While ironically still maintaining their ministers in
the Cabinet, they have withdrawn their support for him. And
surely, he cannot possibly carry on reform without the support
and participation of the House and the people at large.

The ball is now in the President's court. Again, the best
alternative would be for Gus Dur to resign at his own will. This
would be the most honorable step that would set a good example
and perhaps start a good tradition. It would be in the best
interest of national unity.

Likewise, with Gus Dur remaining in power to the end of his
term, there is no guarantee for continued reform. His commitment
to reform seems questionable now in the light of his response to
the House memorandum, not unlike the behavior of a wounded bull.

In addition to his consideration of dissolving the House, he
has also challenged the House with the claim that he still enjoys
the support of the people, although it is not clear how he made
this judgment. He has also challenged that the mandate of the
people does not necessarily come through the mechanism of the
legislature. In so bluffing, he has indicated his little respect
for democratic process, mechanism and institutions.

Given Gus Dur's well-known reluctance to listen, it would be
the responsibility of his staunch supporters, particularly
leaders of the PKB, the Nahdlatul Ulama and its affiliated
organizations -- which are in a much better position than any
other -- to convince him of the real significance and gravity of
the present crisis, and what the implications would be for
reform, and thus for the future of the nation. At stake is not
only Gus Dur's presidency, but more importantly the fate of
reform, and thus the future of the nation.