Honest dialog needed to build common vision

The year 1997 will soon come to an end. Political scientist J. Soedjati Djiwandono reflects upon the year's events and upon what is urgently needed for the future.

JAKARTA (JP): The whole world is anticipating the end of 1997 and the new year. But in this country, we have more reason than most to be anxious. In the words of Adam Schwartz, in this decade of the 1990s, we have remained a "nation in waiting". And more than the rest of the world, this is, for us, the most painful part of the wait.

We are waiting for a change in the political scene. The same political system has been in power for over three decades, a record surpassed only by Cuba's President Fidel Castro. The political system is not functioning fully and properly. There is a growing tendency toward a concentration of power in the hands of the government's executive branch and by contrast, a continuous weakening of the representative bodies' power -- one of whose main functions is to exercise control over the executive branch.

Indeed, one would wonder, especially in light of what has always appeared to be the executive branch's dominant role in the People's Consultative Assembly's (MPR) steering committee, whether the President is really mandated by the MPR or the other way around. Hence, the increasing tendency toward power abuse at all levels, resulting in growing injustice in various forms.

There are increasing demands for greater public participation, greater freedoms of expression and association, an effective mechanism of control, judicial review, an antitrust or antimonopoly law, and a presidential term limitation -- in other words, for greater democracy and justice.

However, we can be sure of only one thing: there will be a change of national leadership. This is as sure as the sun rises in the east, for nobody is immortal.

Nevertheless, unless the present national leader should step down of his own will, which is highly improbable, the rest will remain uncertain. No less uncertain is whether a change in national leadership would result in political reform.

Beyond the widespread demands for change, however, there is, as yet, to be a common understanding nationwide as to what is meant by political reform. In what direction and what aspects of the political system does reform need to take place. Such a common understanding is absolutely necessary, particularly among the country's different religious communities, whose relations have continued to be marked by mutual prejudice, suspicion, distrust and misunderstanding.

Social and political development in the past few years has clearly demonstrated that Indonesian society has been torn and beset by sectarian interests, particularly in racial and religious terms.

The need, therefore, would be for an open and honest dialog between leaders and members of religious communities, to develop a common vision of a desirable society, toward which political change could be geared.

This is of great significance and urgency, particularly among younger generations. It is to these generations that the future belongs. And it is today's young generation that will face the challenge of political reform.

What kind of society do they want for the future? If it is to be a pluralistic society, then what kind of pluralism -- static or dynamic? Is it to be one in which the majority should have privileges, or one with equality and justice for all, with free movement of information, ideas and people? Do they have a common understanding of the Indonesian concept of nationhood, and thus, of national unity with all its implications?

What kind of democracy should be strived for? What about the future role of the military? How would it understand human rights? Above all, how would it understand the role of religion in its future society, in a state based on the Pancasila ideology as embodied in the 1945 Constitution, supposedly the primary source of the state's laws?

Clearly, such dialog would need to take place over a long and arduous process and it would be fruitful only if marked by openness, honesty, humility, patience and goodwill on the part of all those involved.

Indeed, while not much can be done under the present circumstances, such a dialog that developed a common vision of the future -- of a post-sectarian society -- should be the mark of our time, or else we may well be in for another deep political crisis. This would be costly, and perhaps delay indefinitely much-needed reform.