Habibie, Wiranto objects of public discontent

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.