Grand coalition required to pave the way to democracy

Grand coalition required to pave the way to democracy

Nurcholish Madjid, one of Indonesia's most prominent
scholars and intellectuals who is also rector of Paramadina
University, spoke with The Jakarta Post on Monday about the
political transformation facing the nation. The following are
excerpts from the interview:

Question: The nation's next president will soon be elected by
the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR). How do you see this
election?

Answer: Let's start by looking at the MPR itself. Based on
newspaper reports about the MPR sessions, I am convinced that
this nation has a flair for democracy. Democracy is what the
nation has wanted all along and been denied by Sukarno and
Soeharto (the first and second presidents of Indonesia,
respectively), but we have been part of (democracy) for the past
several weeks.

(Former U.S. president Jimmy) Carter was very impressed by the
June 7 elections when he saw how relaxed people were during the
vote counting, cheering and booing without fighting. He said it
was the best of the 26 elections he had witnessed.

So this nation is very democratic by nature, but things turned
from good to bad because of the long lapse between the vote count
to the presidential election. I was one of those who suggested
this time gap be narrowed.

Q: Do we really have the talent of democracy despite a long
experience with dictatorship and prehistorical kingdoms?

A: Yes, we have the aptitude for democracy. To put it briefly,
Hatta (the country's first vice president) always cited the
nagari tradition (the very democratic system of the Minangkabau
society), the mepe tradition (protesting against the king by
exposing oneself to the sun) and our present day elections for
lurah (subdistrict chiefs).

Nevertheless, it is important to remember that despite this
tradition of democracy, the nation's experience with it is a
novel one, hence many are not well-prepared and are working to
visualize a perfect democracy. But nothing is perfect and they
will never find it. Thus, people have to be realistic by striking
a compromise. What to do then, we have to give and take. As
events unfolded over these past two weeks, it appears that the
people at the highest level (of government) are not ready to do
this. What they want is absolute victory.

Q: As a new experience for the nation, attempts to live with
democracy could be successful or they could fail...

A: Basically, there is enough reason to be optimistic. In the
long run it will succeed. Like a ship under sail, there are
storms to encounter but the storms will surely fade away. It is
true that we must never take the storms lightly, but in the long
run I am optimistic. The way I look at it, many people perceive a
military takeover as one of the dangers. However, the continuing
military bashing has put the military in a dilemma and has forced
it to reposition itself in a positive way.

Q: But it seems that the military is trying to retain its
political role through whatever means necessary...

A: Yes it is, but it has also opened itself up by inviting
experts to talk with it. Thus the military does not seem as bad
as people imagined.

Q: Compared with other countries, is the military repositioning
going smoothly?

A: Yes, I mean without having to undergo an internal rift like
the one in the Philippines, although the eventual emergence of
Ramos exemplified the creativity of the Philippine people.

Q: You mean there are no young turks in Indonesia?

A: Yes, on the other hand the old turks (laughing). But
nevertheless, there is nothing that we can take for granted,
although there have been some indications of success.

Q: The state security bill, for example, which the military was
very eager to enforce...

A: Yes, amid the euphoria of freedom of expression suddenly came
this bill, whose clauses edged on compromising the people. Why
shouldn't they postpone it and familiarize the people with it
first to encourage public discourse on it? Isn't that agreeable?
Timing; it is a problem of timing. Well, we can't expect
everything to instantly be well. It seems that we have a 20-year
cycle.

Q: You mean we will have democracy only in 2020?

A: Yes, provided we start to work now with determination to save
the nation by investing in democracy and decide that we want to
overcome the problems in Indonesia once and for all. Indeed,
(former British prime minister) Winston Churchill once said that
democracy is the worse form of government except all those other
forms that have been tried from time to time. But it has the
capacity to correct itself because it is transparent. Take the
Bank Bali scandal, for example. Could you imagine this case being
brought into the open without a free press? So we will have to
rely on press freedom and the upholding of justice. This is what
I told Roy (Stapleton, former United States ambassador to
Indonesia).

Q: Could you elaborate?

A: I told him whatever happens (in Indonesia), I am not worried
because we already have the capital at hand (in the form of)
freedom of expression. This explains why at some point in time I
said whoever our president will be, even if she or he is a tuyul
(deceitful spirit) there will be no problem. Well, I just copied
the essence of what Thomas Jefferson said, that he preferred a
free press to a government if he were asked to choose between the
two. It is freedom in general terms, including academic freedom.
Therefore, universities should turn themselves into kinds of
centers of morality where students become the engine of political
reform, in order to maintain the (democratic) momentum.

Q: The fact that the students have hit the streets is perhaps an
indication that they really understand their role...

A: Yes, that's right. So we must never take things for granted. I
remember (U.S. Secretary of State) Madeleine Albright said during
her recent visit here that the road to recovery, to reform and to
democracy is not a smooth road. It is a bumpy road. She even
compared it to going up a high-rise building with no elevator,
just a staircase. And you have to climb those stairs one step at
a time. We will get exhausted in the middle of the building,
which could mean another crisis. Hence, the need for endurance.
Maintaining stamina is a must. We can not overcome all of our
problems at one stroke. This is especially important for the
young people to remember. This time dimension is of utmost
importance.

Q: So, nothing is instantaneous in fighting for a democracy?

A: Nothing. If we look at history, the toleration act, for
example, was enacted in 1689 in Britain and it was the first of
its kind. It was 310 years ago but look what happened last week
when a bomb exploded in a gay pub there. So nothing is finished.
It is a never-ending process, and we have just started. It is
true that we have the luxury of being able to learn from others
and perhaps compact what otherwise would be a longer process, but
still there is no instant solution. There is nothing like an
instant democracy.

Q: Is the inclusion of people like Ginandjar Kartasasmita and
Akbar Tandjung in the new MPR and House of Representatives (DPR)
proof of how change is not instantaneous?

A: Yes, it's an anomaly; that's really anomalous. Although we can
also find the same kind of people in PDI-P (the Indonesian
Democratic Party of Struggle), for instance. But yes, there is
reasonable change as well as unreasonable change; that's why
things can't be changed in an instant.

Q: Could you describe a change which would be close to ideal?

A: Well, if we draw it up on a piece of paper, we should regard
this Habibie period as the first stage of preparations (for
democracy). These five years we will soon embark on should be the
second stage of preparations; we have not yet arrived at a
democracy. The ground stones of democracy will only be laid in
the next elections, whose laws and regulations we should now work
on so we can overcome the shortcomings of (the June 7) elections.
The June 7 elections were held in a hurry and hence the level of
people's emotion was very high, thus resulting in a huge protest
vote. This should not happen again in 2004. People should turn
out calculative, reasonable and, if possible, contractual votes.

How can you explain the Sidoardjo (East Java town near
Surabaya) phenomenon, for example. It is a stronghold for NU
(Nahdlatul Ulama, Indonesia's largest Muslim organization) and
yet they voted for PDI-P. They were furious. There were huge
numbers of protest votes. Some were channeled to PKB (the
National Awakening Party) and also PAN (the National Mandate
Party). I told Habibie once if he was Golkar's presidential
candidate there would be double bashing: Habibie bashing and
Golkar bashing. He was mad.

Q: Was this before the elections?

A: Yes.

Q: What did he say?

A: He said no, no. That's why I told Akbar Tandjung, as a friend,
your burden is not a burden. You could go through a dissociation
process and by doing so display a new political resume and
collect new political credentials.

Q: Perhaps that is the reason he wished to become speaker of the
House of Representatives?

A: Yes, that is a fitting place for him. He will not be a
(political) target. In fact, he will be the one who launches
(political) attacks.

Actually, I have suggested Golkar become an opposition party
and let others lead the government. By becoming the opposition
for five years, Golkar would win new credentials and it would not
be surprising if it won the 2004 elections, perhaps even with an
absolute majority because Golkar is a relatively all-Indonesian
party. It is all encompassing, has relatively balanced support
both in East and West Java and it is devoid of religious
problems.

Q: With reference to the Sidoardjo phenomenon, there is an
interesting development today in which both the axis force
coalition of Muslim-based parties and PDI Perjuangan have
received the backing of Muslims...

A: Yes, even Madura's santri (devout Muslims). Well, let's look
at it this way. The 'old pillars' (of past political
heavyweights) are still there but they have diffused themselves,
not to mention the old morphological division of santri and
abangan (nominal Muslims). The behavior of PDI-P members, for
instance, is nothing less than that of santri, reading the Koran
and so forth. Outside those members are the residue. The (June 7)
elections was some kind of a test. Why, for example, did so many
parties fight for the star and crescent symbol? There was an
illusion that the symbol would still be attractive to voters.
They would probably be reminded of Masyumi (a leading political
party in the 1950s). When (these parties) garnered few votes they
thought there was a political conspiracy behind their defeat,
forgetting that PNI (the Indonesian National Party, which used a
bull symbol similar to election winner PDI Perjuangan) also
trailed far behind.

Q: And the bull in a triangle symbol...

A: Yes, wasn't the bull symbol also coveted by other parties,
with some ending up with almost identical symbols. They were all
suffering from the illusion that the symbols still carried
weight; but they were all wiped out. The same with IPKI (the
Association of Supporters of Indonesian Independence) and Murba
(the Consensus of People at Large); they were all wiped out.
These last two thought they could fare well outside PDI-P.

They all forgot that a new political platform in Indonesia is
in the making. I am convinced that if the government allowed PKI
(the Indonesian Communist Party) to contest the elections using
their popular sickle and hammer symbol they would have also been
wiped out. Times have changed. One must pay serious attention to
that.

Q: Why is that?

A: Indonesia has undergone a political transformation. The irony
is that this is the most positive aspect of the unintended
consequences of Pak Harto (Soeharto) affording (the people) a
higher level of education. Thus, often the unintended
consequences of education are more important than the intended
consequences. For example, Bung Karno (Sukarno) studied at ITB
(the Bandung Institute of Technology) but became a politician.
Many bankers graduated from IPB (the Bogor Institute of
Agriculture). What, does the institute have something to do with
banking? It is because the most important task of education is to
produce educated people. They could be doctors or lawyers; the
education is not relevant as long as they reach the level of
self-development of being educated.

Soeharto pushed education programs without knowing that their
unintended consequences would be tremendous. Among them was
political awareness. The higher the level of education of the
people the more articulate they became. Put together they yielded
a political synergy that he (Soeharto) eventually came face to
face with. Hence, Soeharto is the victim of his own success.

Q: It is reminiscent of the Dutch colonial government...

A: Exactly. The Dutch employed ethische politiek (ethical
politics) with the illusion that they could cow the Indonesian
people into submission. But the result was the opposite. This was
an unintended consequence of the policy.

Q: Parties like the new Masyumi also forgot that Muslim voters
have discarded the ideological factor of politics...

A: That's right. One of their magazines blamed me for the
failure of Islamist parties. But what about PNI, IPKI, Murba? Our
Christian friends were aware of this and they did not want to
establish the Catholic Party or Christian Party.

Q: There are such parties...

A: Yes, there are some who are not aware of it.

Q: But it seems that conspiracy theories still have currency...

A: It is an indication that they dare not face reality. It is
also a clue of the military's influence; some kind of scapegoat
psychology.

Q: The fact is that more and more Muslims are receiving a higher
education, including from foreign universities.

A: That's right. If you look at the members of the DPR, most of
them are children of santri families. Many of the children of
(former) Masyumi families were vocal and often they opposed each
other. Well, like myself, I am a child of Masyumi in biological
terms, but what does it mean?

Q: Coming back to the ongoing political struggle, there are some
people who believe that should the axis force succeed in putting
Gus Dur in the presidency it will alienate a substantial number
of people. Do you agree?

A: That's correct. I understand that the axis force is actually
an instant creation without a clear platform. It is not very
clear, for instance, whether or not it includes PKB or Gus Dur. I
think people like Goenawan Mohamad (former chief editor of Tempo
magazine) are aware of the impulsive character of the axis force.

Q: There are some people who see the possibility of Amien Rais
(speaker of the People's Consultative Assembly) becoming
president. Do you view this as a possibility?

A: Hopefully this will not happen. The best thing is to maintain
democratic common sense in accordance with which party won the
elections. Hopefully (the MPR) will immediately change the
elections rules and laws so that we can have a direct
(presidential) election next time around.

Q: How do you view the widely circulated rumors of money
politics?

A: I think it is a suicidal act for both the bribe giver and
receiver because it ignores the voice of human conscience. As
(former U.S. president Abraham) Lincoln said, you can cheat a
number of people all the time or all the people some of the time,
but never all of the people all of the time because human
conscience will speak out. The KPU (General Elections Commission)
could serve as an example. It was only 40-people strong and some
spoke out (when it was hit by bribery allegations). Now we have
700 members in the MPR, many of whom are not afraid to live in
poverty (to defend their conscience). That I know for sure.

Q: What political configuration do you hope to see emerge ahead
of the presidential election next week?

A: The way I see it, during the period which I called the second
stage of preparations for democracy, we may have to forge some
kind of grand coalition. Before I suggested the importance of
having an opposition. Now it looks like appeasement is more
urgent.

Q: Appeasement of the contending parties?

A: Yes, that's the most important thing. This morning, for
example, I saw on television supporters of PDI-P all clad in
battle-ready uniforms. If democracy still leaves room for a clash
where do we go? That's why appeasement (is important).

In the past I suggested a reconciliation (between the status
quo and reformist forces). But Habibie thought the MPR sessions
(in November) were a reconciliation. It was a constitutional
reconciliation. What I meant was a political and psychological
reconciliation. It has nothing to do with formalities.

No matter how small (the step) taken in that direction, it has
to get started. A determination to forget past mistakes, such as
between Masyumi and PKI. It has to be cleared once and for all.
And finally, do we allow vendettas? Thus, how to abandon past
political conflicts and forge a new deal, especially among large
political parties.

Q: The political parties or the people?

A: Yes, that's something that needs to be considered. (Political
parties) should comprise people who have the moral capacity to
end KKN (acronym for corruption, collusion and nepotism). This
capacity does not exist in people who committed corruption, does
it? In other words, the new government should comprise 'clean'
people.

I always cite Singapore as an example. A British writer,
(Sterling) Seagrave, quoted the 19th century king of Sarawak in
one of his books, The Lords of the Rim, talking about rich
overseas Chinese in the Asia Pacific.

The king, who is British, asked how we should respond to the
Chinese. Shall we admire them for their industry, laboriousness,
thriftiness, patience and cheerfulness, or despise them because
they are corrupt, supple and exacting, yielding to their
superiors and tyrannical to those who fall under their power?
That is the stereotype.

But wait a minute, look at Singapore. The predominantly
Chinese (Singapore) is a clean country with a clean government;
perhaps number one or two in the world after Finland. So
stereotyping in Seagrave's book is not right; at least it (the
negative attitude) can be overcome. Suppose the stereotype is
true; it can be overcome by an authentic leader such as Lee Kuan
Yew who himself is clean. So Singapore is able to launch a
crusade against dirty practices (in government). Hence, there is
an example in front of our eyes about how effective a clean
government can be. The new government should be like that (in
Singapore) and launch a crusade (against KKN).

Q: With so many quarters proposing you as a presidential
candidate, why don't you want to throw your hat in the ring?

A: (Laughing) The people at large would admonish me.

Q: But won't the political elite just continue fighting?

A: Yes, but there is no guarantee they would stop fighting (if I
became president). The danger is that too great expectations
would be placed on me and suddenly my performance would not be up
to par. Being able to perform or not perform does not depend on
one's ability alone, but also on political conditions and
institutions. (anr, hbk)