Habibie, Wiranto objects of public discontent

By Tjipta Lesmana

JAKARTA (JP): Public opinion is regarded as a force that should not be underestimated by any player in the political arena of every democratic or quasi-democratic state.

Public opinion, in a sense, is the people's voice. That voice is echoed in an opinion survey or printed in the mass media or heard on the street. In democratic states, results of opinion surveys conducted by distinguished institutions are always trusted as valuable information. The data must guide and inspire, to some extent, every leader's policy if he or she harbors ambitions to gain the endorsement of the people in the pursuit of power. Otherwise it is only a matter of time before their grip on power is shaken loose. Disregarding the masses all too often can lead them to withdraw their support and reduce leaders political legitimacy.

The fall of former president Soeharto's regime was partly due to his neglect of public expressions of discontent. It must be acknowledged that public opinion was a rare phenomenon in those days.

The regime disdained opinion coming from sources other than accepted authorities selected wisdom. Any opinion emanating outside official viewpoints was quickly labeled "gossip". Journalists who printed "gossip" risked heavy penalties from the government. Nevertheless, public opinion expressed itself on the streets and even intensified from time to time.

In fact, years before Soeharto's resignation, public opinion had been critical of the New Order Rule. People argued that the regime was authoritarian and malicious, that Soeharto used the state ideology of Pancasila as a political device to conceal all misdemeanors and perpetuate his authority and that officials from all levels were, on the whole, extremely acquisitive. Such opinion was easily transformed into a string of unlawful and bloody acts after Soeharto was forced to resign last May.

In contrast to Soeharto's experience, U.S. President Bill Clinton was at first totally disgraced when the Senate threatened him with impeachment as a result of the sexual scandal with Monica Lewinsky. The Senate campaign to remove Clinton from the White House was so pervasive that the world leaders were worried about the trial's global impact. However, the impeachment proceeding clearly contradicted public opinion which overwhelmingly supported the Clinton leadership. The Senate finally listened to the constituent's voice and Clinton was acquitted. Public opinion reigned.

At home, two top national figures, Armed Forces (ABRI) Commander Gen. Wiranto and President B.J. Habibie are currently facing a hostile public.

Wiranto is viewed as a man with a weak character who talks rather than acts. He is widely regarded to be Soeharto's lackey. Such public opinion springs from substantial evidence. Two political phenomena provide examples of convincing evidence.

First, ABRI has proven itself incompetent to investigate and resolve the recent waves of bloody violence, such as the killing spree in East Java and mass brawls and rioting in Ketapang (Jakarta), Kupang (East Nusa Tenggara) and Ambon (Maluku).

Some people who disbelieve ABRI's capability to handle those events, have arrived at the opinion that ABRI itself is involved in the disturbances. Their argument hinges on suspicions of Wiranto's continuing loyalty to Soeharto with hints that elite political elements were behind the recent bloody incidents.

Second, Wiranto has never taken concrete steps to meet his promises of disclosing the truth about certain events including: the abduction of political activists, the killing of Trisakti University students and the massive rioting in mid-May 1998.

Some people think that some powerful force is obstructing Wiranto's authority to act as a respected Armed Forces Commander. They regard the recent trial of policemen in conjunction with the student deaths as pure theater only. The ongoing trial of 11 members of the Army's Special Force (Kopassus) in the abduction case is also viewed as highly contrived. The people are seeking former Kopassus commander Let. Gen. Prabowo Subianto's accountability on the matter. General consensus on his high level role in the abduction case is so solid that any trial that does not involve his presence will not be accepted.

As a top ABRI officer, Wiranto is supposed to realize the consequence of negative public opinion, specifically discontent leveled at him. Yet, Wiranto is considered as one of the forerunners in the upcoming presidential election. Should negative opinion about him persist long enough, his golden chance will undoubtedly be damaged. The crucial question is "Why he does he remain silent as if he had no strategy to help his own stance?"

It is widely speculated that ABRI might seize power should the political situation become chaotic. All recent violent and bloody incidents may have been purposely instigated by ABRI as part of such a tactic. The tactic, if true, is highly risky.

The reform movement in Indonesia is at a critical moment. Turning it back is almost impossible. Seizure of power by ABRI would certainly be challenged by all pro-reform leaders and their grassroots supporters with more blood shed on the streets.

It is also interesting to question the relation between Wiranto and Habibie. As President and ABRI's supreme commander, Habibie is supposed to know everything about Wiranto. The recent bloody incidents, for example, on the one hand reflected ABRI's incompetence and, on the other hand, indicated the existence of a very strong power "beyond the state structure" that could undermine Habibie's regime.

Habibie, indeed, is in a critical position in either case. He is becoming increasingly unpopular. The recent alleged phone-tap of a conversation between himself and Attorney General Andy Muhammad Ghalib certainly dented his popularity, solidifying public opinion that Habibie will never court-marshal Soeharto. Disregarding the authenticity of the conversation, the substance of the tapped conversation indicated that the recent summoning of Soeharto to the Attorney General's Office was merely a political move to appease people's demands for accountability by the former president.

There is a widely believed theory that Habibie and Wiranto are locked in an interdependent relationship. Habibie cannot rule the country without Wiranto's help, while Wiranto needs Habibie to strengthen his position as a potential presidential candidate if Habibie is rejected by the people. Habibie's recent comment on the deployment of troops under the command of Prabowo around his residence in May 1998 together with the alleged phone tap conversation raises the question: "Does the partnership between Habibie and Wiranto prevail?"

Both Prabowo and Wiranto rejected Habibie's charge by insisting that the troops' movement was part of standard ABRI procedure. The response could be regarded as a heavy blow verging on humiliation for the President.

No matter whether the Habibie-Wiranto partnership is still on, one fact seems certain: their presidential nomination by the ruling Golkar party has not been widely accepted. Golkar is deeply concerned with the public's negative verdict on both figures.

The writer is a graduate of the University of Chicago and a lecturer at the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, University of Indonesia.