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.