Golkar advances as others fight: Expert

The Golkar party, among the strongest of the New Order legacies, is about "to score a goal" while everyone else is busy fighting one another, says Riswandha Imawan, a lecturer in politics at the Yogyakarta-based Gadjah Mada University.

Question: We are seeing the rise of "New Order" elements, demonstrated by situations like the resistance towards the trial of human rights violators in East Timor. Your comment?

Answer: I agree, and that's the consequence of two major things. Firstly, the neglect of the reform movement to focus more intensively on principle issues instead of personalities.

We have forgotten the major issue -- that toppling down Soeharto is not the same as destroying his regime which had five basic, solid sources of power: authority, law, economy, culture and the military.

The reform movement was content when Soeharto's legitimacy to power was destroyed; then we wasted all our energy on the political figures, while the four main pillars of the New Order regime remained to be "neutralized."

Of the economy, Attorney General Marzuki Darusman has admitted the existence of New Order economic powers trying to wipe out traces of debts under the bank liquidity support facilities; regarding the law we can see how Tommy Soeharto escaped in front of the police; culturally, we can still witness how many people say they feel pity towards the Cendana family (Soeharto's family), which is now harassed by police.

This means the New Order has succeeded in influencing public awareness; corruption and its various political sins, in particular involving the former first family, is considered so natural that it is perceived that the Cendana family don't deserve the treatment they are now receiving.

Then there is the fact that the 10 best graduates from the Military Academy pledged loyalty to Soeharto when they were inaugurated. The last inauguration by Soeharto was in 1997.

At that time the graduates were lieutenants, now maybe they're only majors. So it's nonsense to imagine that the TNI dare stand up against Soeharto unless the military is purified from former forces.

The bureaucracy has also been dominated by Golkar. So if, during the selection process for a new Chief Justice, Muladi is said to be tainted by his involvement in the New Order ... who wasn't? Therefore the reform movement has revealed a gap between the spirit to destruct the old system and current reality.

What we have now is a replica of the New Order under different circumstances ... the problem has been neglect towards both the basis of legitimacy and the introduction of a new paradigm.

Q: How about indications of Golkar trying to strengthen itself through what looks like efforts to secure important positions to control the Prosecutor's Office, the House of Representatives and the Central Bank? What about other figures, or other political parties?

A: Other figures are too busy with their own petty problems. Just like in the past when the New Order managed to make the Indonesian Democratic Party busy with its own frictions.

Other parties are preoccupied by consolidation and fund raising ahead of the 2004 elections, because their infrastructure is indeed lacking.

Competition over financial resources is continuing, not only at the ministerial level, but also from Director Generals and directors of state owned firms.

The only position which no one is competing over is the ministry of womens affairs.

Political actors are also too engrossed in the issue of Soeharto and Tommy -- but only to the degree of their personalities.

This is one reason that people accept Golkar's redemption.

If Golkar's redemption relates to figures like (dismissed Golkar legislator) Bambang Warih, this would still be acceptable, but if it's Akbar Tandjung saying that how could we believe him?

The rise of figures resented by reform supporters, like Muladi, has been possible because of the scandals surfacing during the selection of important posts like that of the Chief Justice, which has diverted the attention of political actors.

Q: Do you think the new politicians have been too reactive in responding to problems involving the executive?

A: Not entirely. What's happening is a coincidental political development involving the reform supporters which turned out to be in favor of Golkar.

The new politicians in the House are undergoing a learning experience, through which they seek a point of balance in their attitude -- balancing the stigma of the legislature's impotency under the New Order and the real current needs for political stability.

The rivalry between the President and the House was beyond anyone's expectations, primarily because of Gus Dur's weak legitimacy judged by the votes gained by his National Awakening Party in the 1999 elections. It was hard to imagine Gus Dur daring to plunge into conflict with the House.

Secondly, the Gus Dur of the past was the most neutral figure among political factions; both between political groupings for and against the New Order, and also among factions within opposing groups of the regime.

The current problems are because he changed, which seems to have become the source of conflict itself. Golkar nowadays is like a second striker appearing from a blank spot in the right position to score a goal, while everyone else is unaware, too occupied with fighting each other.

Q: Is the rivalry between the President and the House more a difference in style?

A: The important question now is whether Abdurrahman Wahid is a source of our problems or a solution? His political maneuvers so far have provoked squabbles among reform supporters.

If he is indeed the source of the problem, just make him step down, although this must involve cautious consideration. Nevertheless, we must acknowledge the complexity of the New Order's legacy that Abdurrahman faces.

Q: Do you have particular suggestions?

A: The reform movement must regain unity to, among other things, settle or neutralize this legacy. If necessary, we could promote a new symbol for leadership who has not been entangled by the current conflicts.

Amien Rais is involved, and his political career is almost ending. Megawati is clearly in a traditional conflict with Amien and his political bandwagon. To avoid disintegration of the reform movement, one alternative is a new political leader.

For this purpose it seems we can't hope for leadership from the 1998 reform movement, nor from the three political figures who were part of the Ciganjur group (Gus Dur, Megawati and Amien Rais. The group also included Yogyakarta Governor Sultan Hamengkubuwono X).

Akbar does not count as an alternative; he only got a free ride on the reform movement. I suggest that Sultan Hamengkubuwono X could be a symbol of new political leadership.

We can only maintain Gus Dur as national leader if he can change his controversial political style. Secondly, he must be open to advice from others. This, I think, is crucial. (Asip A. Hasani)