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.