How do we define political reform?

How do we define political reform?

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): The word reform has become very popular these
days, to the extent of becoming a household word.

Initially, this phenomenon made me feel optimistic. I thought
that the thinking class in our society sincerely wants reform. If
that is the case, then there should be no problem whatsoever for
our nation to introduce political and economic reforms.

But this sense of optimism vanished immediately after I read
an explanation about how the Armed Forces (ABRI) is going to
carry out its reform, and what its notion is regarding "political
reform".

The April 3 edition of Kompas daily carried a small report on
it. According to the chief of the Armed Forces' Sociopolitical
Affairs, Lt. Gen. Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, "the political
attitude and view of ABRI regarding reform is that it should be
carried out in a constitutional, conceptual, and gradual manner,
it should be aimed at the right target, and carried out according
to the priority of urgencies. ABRI is also of the opinion that
reform has already been carried out in the process of nation
building.

"The mechanism of reform is already prearranged in our
political system. There is mechanism at the DPR/MPR level, there
is also a set of established processes of implementing
development programs, and there are proposals about political
life, programs to increase political communication and programs
to increase the quality of the general election. All those things
constitute the mechanism of reform, and they are constitutional."

At this point, I lost my appetite to read any further. It
became very clear to me that if this is the way the Armed Forces
looks at and thinks of reform, then the gap between ABRI's notion
and that of the demonstrating students and the academics
regarding reform is as wide as ever, and is still unbridgeable. I
do not see any common element between the two positions that can
be used as a point of departure for formulating a reconciliatory
position for the two sides.

If I am not mistaken, all the things that were mentioned by
Yudhoyono as the "mechanism of reform" would be considered by the
students and the academics precisely as the impediments of
reform.

In my view, it is precisely the things the general mentioned
in his explanation to the press that have made our political life
deteriorate.

If the general elections that have been conducted after 1972
are considered to be "gradually qualitatively better", then it is
really a tragedy. Is ABRI really serious in maintaining that the
general election of 1997 was qualitatively better than that of
1992 and the preceding ones?

It is also self-deceptive, in my opinion, to think that our
political system has become qualitatively better. What is the
criterion? In my view, the way the government removed H. Jaelani
(John) Naro from his throne as boss of the United Development
Party was much gentler than the way the government marginalized
the Indonesian Democratic Party's Megawati Soekarnoputri from the
formal political system and make her existence as a political
leader illicit.

Again, if we are really honest in viewing our political
condition, it would be utterly impossible to assert that we have
made significant progress in our political life. To me, political
progress is indicated by the presence of greater respect for the
people's sensibilities, by greater transparency in conducting
public affairs, and significant reduction in the use of violent
methods in bringing about public order. Do we have these
indicators in our current political life?

I agree that during these years regulations have been
constantly made concerning our political system. I also have no
objection if ABRI wants to call these regulations "reforms". But
this kind of reform is different, I think, than the reforms that
the students and the academics have in mind.

Those reforms, conducted by the government since 1973, are
"retrogressive reforms", that is, reforms that have taken us to a
backward, more inferior or more primitive condition. Whereas the
reforms the demonstrating students and the academics have in mind
are, in my reading, "progressive reforms", that is, reforms that
will take us to a condition better, more democratic, and more
humane, than the one in which we live.

We can learn much in this case from the Chilean experience.
The political reforms that were carried out during the Unidad
Popular Government (1970 to 1973) under President Salvador
Allende, and during the 17 years of military rule (1973 to 1990)
under Gen. Augusto Pinochet Ugarte were retrogressive reforms
that caused a breakdown in the existing democratic system which
was then still weak and embryonic, and ultimately brought the
country into the status of an "authoritarian" state.

But the institutional reforms that were introduced during the
administration of President Patricio Alwyn were progressive
reforms that did not only rehabilitate, but also strengthened the
Chilean democracy.

Since 1994, Chile has enjoyed the status of a "true
democratic" country, the second-highest in a hierarchy of eight
categories of democracy.

Let us, in this connection, thus be aware of the pitfalls of
reforms. Let us remember that throughout the history of humankind
the idea of reform has always created controversies.

John Stuart Mill wrote in 1859: "The spirit of improvement is
not always a spirit of liberty, for it may aim at forcing
improvements on an unwilling people."

And a more contemporary writer, Irving Howe (1920-1993), wrote
in his A Critic's Notebook (published in 1994): "One great flaw
in the reforming passion is that in its eagerness to remedy
social wrongs it tends to neglect, certainly to undervalue, the
experiences of those whose lives it wishes to improve."

This wisdom should prompt us to check constantly whether our
agenda of reform really corresponds with the needs of the people.
The Armed Forces, the students and the community of students and
academics should ask themselves the following question: "What is
my agenda of reform? Will it really improve the lives of the
people whom we are supposed to serve?"

If each of us is willing to look honestly into ourselves and
answer this question equally honestly for ourselves, I think we
will then be able to avert a clash between two concepts of reform
which, at the moment, seem to be at loggerheads.

The writer is an observer of social and cultural affairs.