General election results reveal the real Indonesia

By Prapti Widinugraheni

Indonesia's next government will most likely rid itself of the corruption of the Soeharto administration because of the people's desire for reform, as expressed through the ballot box. H.S. Dillon, a former government official turned government critic, and currently a member of the National Commission on Human Rights, shares the reasons behind his optimism over the next administration.

Question: Corruption, collusion and nepotism were cultivated by Soeharto's regime and basically are now systemic. How can you be sure that a new government will not make the same mistake as Soeharto's administration?

Dillon: It goes beyond just being systemic. Soeharto was very adept at using corruption as an instrument for regime maintenance. And this is what I would call a Mafia style of management. This means that anybody in the Mafia hierarchy has to commit a crime, and once you have committed a crime you are held for ransom. That is why the salaries of all officials and government employees were kept so low, so that almost everybody had to be corrupt. Why did Soeharto and his people do this? Because they realized they needed the bureaucracy as their source of support.

Now, for the first time in 30 years, or maybe 20 years because initially Golkar had a clear constituency -- Megawati (Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle chairwoman) and Gus Dur (Abdurrahman Wahid, National Awakening Party chairman) will have a clear constituency. And they will not be dependent on the bureaucracy for support. That means they will have to address the needs of this constituency -- the real needs -- because they have been democratically elected.

Q: And how do you propose they eliminate the corruption which has been so deeply embedded for such a long time?

D: I have a very simple formula. We would have to arrest a handful of officials who are very easy to identify, in the sense that they are people that the public at large knows are very corrupt. Then we would issue a blanket pardon: Any junior official who comes up with evidence that can be used to convict a former superior -- even though this means he has also been corrupt and equally guilty -- would be let free. That is the only way you can come up with evidence. Because asking for evidence of corruption is, well, contrary to reason, because successful corruption is corruption where you don't leave any traces.

So I think it is necessary and crucial for the next government, in the first six months of its administration, to prove and demonstrate that it is going to be different from the previous government. If you look back in history, there was a time when we actually had very good officials. Prior to 1955, when government salaries were good and there was a working democracy, people were very honest. People were doing well and they were ashamed of being corrupt. I personally believe that it's not whether Megawati and Gus Dur will want to (prove they are different from the previous government); I think we, the people, will never let them (do otherwise).

Q: There seems to be a lot of backroom politics, secret deals, compromises and other political games between political party leaders. As a 'people's advocate', do you see this as an 'elephant fight with the deer crushed in the middle' (to quote an Indonesian saying)?

D: Not really, because what these elections have done is expose the fraudulent claims to majority by various groups and various elite. People -- the elite -- have asked me: 'What type of people voted for Megawati?' And this is why I say the Indonesian elite is not ready for democracy. The people are, the elite is not. Because for the last 20 years, the elite -- in collaboration with the Army, since technocrats can only come into power when you have authoritarian states -- have never had their position questioned. So in the past, the elite always thought they represented Indonesia, that they constituted Indonesia. And so come questions like these -- which came from a close friend of mine with a PhD -- asking why I thought Megawati had to be president and what sort of people voted for her.

And that's the very essence, because the people who voted for Megawati, Gus Dur, they are Indonesia. We are not Indonesia, they are more Indonesia than we are. That's the essence of democracy. And that's why it's important to see that this momentum keeps building, so that in rural areas institutions like cooperatives, which have become what I call extracted institutions, can be retransformed into representative institutions. It's very important that you have an effective working democracy in rural areas before you have decentralization, before you provide autonomy. If you were to provide autonomy now, without a working democracy or the capacity of farmers and the rural community to organize itself and press for their needs, then instead of one centralized tyrant you'd have 27 or more decentralized tyrants.

Q: Do you see the blood oaths by Megawati's followers as primitive intimidation which can be manipulated and lead to further bloodshed, making it not much different from Soeharto's style of rule (as stated by Amien Rais)?

D: Why has Megawati kept quiet all this time? Why did she appear to condone these blood oaths? When you are faced with circulars saying that people of a certain faith should not vote for those from different faiths within this nation-state -- which, mind you, was designed by the founding fathers as a multiethnic, multireligious nation-state -- when you are confronted with these sorts of people, the only language they understand is the language they speak. Their language is a primitive one; they try to circumscribe. In fact, they are so undemocratic they were trying to terrorize their own faith. So (the blood oaths) are more a means -- a response, rather -- that speaks in that same language. What those people who are signing their names in blood are saying is: Our candidate has won, don't try to stop her. So actually, they are being very democratic.

They are cognizant of the fact that people around Habibie, even if he has denied it, have been effectively using money to garner support from within Golkar. We know for a fact that there were a lot of people who were against him initially, and now they are for him. Either he has a very convincing argument, or there have been other instruments employed to convince them. Now we're afraid because there are so many people in the current administration -- and I say that this transitional administration is much more corrupt than the previous one -- who have the capacity to use these funds to, how should I say, convince members of the legislature to vote for Habibie. So (the blood oaths) are a very natural response.

Q: What do you think of the International Monetary Fund's reform program for Indonesia? Can a new government implement it?

D: I don't believe in (the IMF). You see, if you look at the IMF's reforms, then what is immediately apparent is that they are here to set the agenda for us. The IMF is telling us what is good for us. OK, if you're dealing with a corrupt government, fine. The IMF and the World Bank have shaped the agenda with the consent of the current government -- the elite -- the same elite which was in a state of denial until Soeharto was forced to step aside. Let me be more specific. Ginandjar (coordinating minister for economy and finance), who is the chief architect now, was the chief architect of the GBHN (State Policy Guidelines) 1998. And if you have time to delve into it, this made no mention at all of the crisis. Can you imagine that? So here they were preparing guidelines for the next five years, and they were denying what was happening around them. How can anyone trust anything created by them? There was a debate even then whether the clothes cut and sewn by the IMF really fit Indonesia, let alone if they would fit Indonesia in the future.

Compare Indonesia to Malaysia. Both will come out of this crisis. The major difference will be, we will come out with a huge debt. And if you look at the focus or emphasis of the IMF, you can see it is very elitist, very urban. More or less, I accuse them of trying to recreate Soeharto's Indonesia. No, I want a people's Indonesia. So we'll have to renegotiate with the IMF. Of course, I can understand why Kwik Kian Gie (of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle) and others have said we'll go along (with the IMF reforms). Because they don't want Washington to stop the reforms now. I can understand that.

But no, I don't believe in them. You see, last year industrial economies spent US$360 billion protecting their farmers. Their farmers, who are probably a hundred times richer than you and I, let alone our farmers. So unless someone can teach me how to enhance the productivity of farmers without using nonmarket measures, then I will believe that to achieve food security and enhance the productivity of our farmers, we have to use all the means at our disposal, market or otherwise.

Q: How should a new government respond to the IMF's reform package?

D: They can carry them out as long as the reforms really address the needs of the constituents, and because it is a different ball game now. You won't be catering to the needs of the urban elite. It was the small people who brought Megawati and Gus Dur into power. People that we, the elite, dismiss as if they were not citizens.

Q: Do you see yourself anywhere in the new government?

D: For me, it is much more important to serve. So far, I have been very fortunate that I have been able to serve the people by just coming out and criticizing. Of course, if I were to be put on the team, a team whose members respected each other and whose objectives were really to meet the demands of the people, then for me it would be an honor and I would be very willing to serve. It all depends: If they deliver, then it would really be a privilege for me to join them. If, however, they were to continue with the old mode, then there would be no point.

Q: What paradigm shifts and economic policies do you think are necessary?

D: In the initial years of Soeharto, the 1960s, growth opposed equity. You thought there was a trade-off between growth and equity. In later years, you said it could be done in parallel, growth with equity. Now, I believe you should have growth through equity. That equity is an instrument and equity comes first.