Habibie the democrat? Look at the facts

Habibie the democrat? Look at the facts

By Rahayu Ratnaningsih

JAKARTA (JP): In her letter in the Oct. 12 edition of this
newspaper, Donna K. Woodward lamented Nova Poerwadi's rebuttal
(Let Indonesians choose a ruler Oct. 2) of her article Blame
hypocrisy for loss of E. Timor of Sept. 28. Yet Poerwadi's view
about the superficial grasp foreigners have of Indonesia's
political situation is shared by many Indonesians. Her writing
revealed some fundamental flaws and the fallacy of
presupposition.

As Poerwadi mentioned, Woodward's gross misconception
regarding the roles of B.J. Habibie and Megawati Soekarnoputri in
reform are sadly common enough among the expatriate community and
certain international circles. They view Habibie as a democrat
who was a far cry from his predecessor and has shown his
willingness to reform by "allowing a degree of freedom of
political expression unheard of in Indonesia or most other
Southeast Asian countries", as Woodward stated in her article.

The statement is evidence of severe historical misinformation
and a pitiful memory lapse that would not have come from a
credible commentator equipped with in-depth understanding of
Indonesian politics. Where in her article did she mention the
role of the people, mainly students, in Soeharto's downfall
before she conveniently and generously rewarded Habibie for the
"free gift" they presented him?

As correctly stated by Poerwadi, anybody in Habibie's position
would not be able to resist the overwhelmingly strong demand for
change and freedom of expression and, with that in mind,
Habibie's "democratic style" is not something intrinsic to him or
to his credit. Rather, it is something he could not afford not to
do if he really wanted to stay in power, which he desperately
did.

In other words, rewarding Habibie for this freedom is a
hurtful betrayal of the students' and people's struggle that cost
them a number of their colleagues' lives. If Habibie was indeed a
true democrat, he would not have taken that cozy position on
Soeharto's coattails, praising the old man's every move as
strokes of "genius" and keeping absolutely silent about his
repressive stance against the people's cry for more democracy.
He, at all costs, defended and up to know still defends, Soeharto
and all his misdemeanors.

Woodward questioned Megawati's commitment on popular items on
the reform agenda, such as those on prosecuting Soeharto or
eliminating the military's dual function. In her July 29 speech,
Megawati confirmed her commitment to upholding the supremacy of
law by taking all necessary legal action against Soeharto as well
as Habibie for their alleged corruption and other state crimes
involving them.

And the military issue is the biggest dilemma.

As an institution that carries such destructive weaponry, it
holds a privilege that no politician can really afford taking a
drastic move against. Like it or not, it holds a strategic
position. However, through the Ciganjur Declaration last year
Megawati, together with Abdurrahman "Gus Dur" Wahid, Amien Rais
and Sri Sultan Hamengkubuwono X, agreed to gradually curtail the
military's role in civil matters. The choice is between being
realistic and idealistic and politicians have to balance the two.

Woodward justified her recent "snide" comment of Megawati
being "not a strong-minded, articulate reform leader" on that she
cannot base her credentials on the other's identity in the pro-
status quo. It is correct, apart from her persistent dismissal of
the magnitude of Megawati's struggle against the New Order.

Historical facts tell us that before those other "braver
national leaders", as she coined them in her article, appeared in
countless speeches on national TV and open public platforms,
Megawati was one of the few leaders who was "beaten black and
blue" by Soeharto for silently, yet persistently, opposing his
"almighty will".

Were those "braver national leaders" there at Jl. Diponegoro,
then headquarters of the Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI), on
July 27, 1996 to fight against the devious elite's engineered
scheme to replace PDI's then legitimate chairman because they
were so fearful of this "not strong-minded nor articulate" reform
leader's wide-reaching influence at the grassroots level?

Did they appear in any of the trials attempting to seek
justice for the party and its many missing and/or killed members
following the incident?

Did Megawati fight incessantly? Yes, she did. The only
difference was she was a fighter of the Ahimsa spirit. For
better or worse, she has her own style but the only problem is
that talking is often confused with action in this country.

Politicians who talk more and louder have inevitably become
the country's "flavor of the month". There is nothing wrong in
the penchant for talking or communicating ideas per se but
Megawati's true leadership lies in her low profile and emotional
intelligence. Thus, to merely attribute her success to her
father's name could appear to be a presumptuous running
commentary from a not-so-informed commentator.

When things got really bad for her and her party back in July
1996 after her supporters were killed or taken into police
custody and never returned, she offered her deputy Kwik Kian Gie
the choice to back off from the struggle because she sensed one
of those days she and PDI's officers might end up in jail.

She said that if he wanted to stop she would understand and
welcome the decision and it would not affect their friendship or
her opinion about him in any way. However, she said that she
herself would keep moving on. Kwik reportedly burst into tears
and called his wife that night to pack some clothes in case he
was "picked up" by the police.

Regarding her stance on East Timor, Megawati clearly stated in
her Newsweek article that she did not object to the substance of
the issue, which was the option of referendum, but rather she
viewed the procedures and timing as extremely flawed. So it is
the "how" instead of the "what". It does not take a psychic to
be able to predict that Habibie's bold move in an obvious
personal quest for international recognition, or even a Nobel
prize, would end in unnecessary violence and casualties. The
nation was in an unstable state, it was expecting a general
election and there were mounting unsolvable cases that needed to
be urgently taken care of. Furthermore, his government was only
a transitional one and seriously lacking in legitimacy.

Woodward, in her "objective" assessment of Habibie, also wrote
in her article: "While declining to control his military
subordinates properly, Habibie nevertheless has not resorted to
misuse of his position as commander in chief to retain office."

Last year Soeharto did not misuse his position as commander in
chief to retain his position, either. Habibie might not be a
smart politician, but he is not dumb enough -- and is not yet
prepared -- to mark his demise here and now with such a suicidal
move. Thus, does Woodward's statement say anything about
Habibie's virtue? No. It was a non-statement.

It is true that Megawati seems silent on most crucial issues.
But then she was silent when she herself was persecuted. She is
silent about the inhumane mistreatment her father was forced to
endure at the end of his life under house arrest imposed by
Soeharto. If she does not appear gung ho to prosecute her
father's "nemesis", it only shows her objectivity and even-
mindedness.

If being vindictive and verbose is a show of commitment, then
A.A. Baramuli is a role model. However, she was not silent while
posing for photographers, all smiles, with Soeharto riding high
on his Harley Davidson, as Habibie famously did.