Indonesia in transition: Some parting thoughts

Indonesia in transition: Some parting thoughts

By J. Stapleton Roy

This is the first of a two-part presentation by the outgoing
U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia at the Indonesian Council on World
Affairs (ICWA) in Jakarta on Wednesday. The second installment
will appear on Friday.

JAKARTA (JP): I have been privileged to serve in Indonesia
during a period of extraordinary crisis and change. My purpose
today is to share with you some personal thoughts on the sweeping
changes that have occurred in Indonesia over the past three and a
half years and the challenges that loom ahead.

Four years ago when I was preparing to come to this country,
many of the best experts on Indonesia in the United States were
generous with their time in helping to prepare me for this
assignment. Their advice was invaluable. Indeed, one of my
predecessors warned me that I would fall in love with Indonesia.
He was very close to the truth since I have indeed been both
charmed and fascinated by Indonesia. In fact, when I think of
Indonesia's beauty as a country and the charm of her people, I am
always reminded of the Shakespearean phrase describing Mark
Anthony's fascination with Cleopatra: "age cannot wither her, nor
custom stale her infinite variety."

For nearly two years, I have read articles and news reports
about Indonesia that have highlighted this country's
difficulties. As we all know, those difficulties have been real,
not imagined. But they have not been any more formidable than the
difficulties faced by Indonesia when it became independent. And
yet the country has established a remarkable record of dealing
with these problems successfully.

Let's begin by looking at some of the things that Indonesia
has done right.

* No country so poorly prepared for independence as was the
case for Indonesia has done as well at creating better social and
economic conditions for its people, an achievement all the more
remarkable given this country's size and population.

* Indonesia's extraordinary economic growth over the last
thirty years was real and has benefited all Indonesians, although
admittedly some more than others.

* Education and health standards have made impressive
progress.

* Indonesia put its resources into economic development rather
than into expensive military hardware, with the result that
Indonesia's per capita military spending is among the lowest in
the world.

* The country has consistently promulgated a philosophy that
celebrates diversity and preaches the tolerance necessary for
diversity to work.

* Indonesia made major strides in family planning largely
without resorting to the coercive methods that have marred
similar policies elsewhere.

None of these accomplishments was predictable 30 years ago,
and indeed no one predicted they would happen. But they did.

So the fact that I did not anticipate the experiences that I
have faced in Indonesia is no fault of the experts who helped
prepare me for this assignment. Indonesia has conclusively
demonstrated over the past two years that it is a country that
defies predictability. This always gives me comfort when I find
that my views about the future of this country are more
optimistic than those of the pessimistic prophets of gloom and
doom.

The failure of most observers to foresee the economic downturn
here and the political changes that followed cannot obscure the
fact that strong impulses for change were already evident even in
1996, and these obviously had a major impact on subsequent
developments. Even though Indonesia was stable and prosperous
when I arrived in January 1996, I had barely been here a few
weeks before it became apparent how strong the desire was in all
strata of the population for political change. Under President
Soeharto, Indonesia had established a remarkable record of
economic growth, but the President had held power for 30 years
and showed no signs of willingness to relinquish his grip on the
helm of government. Moreover, evolutionary political change under
the New Order had not kept pace with the rapid economic growth of
the country. Nor had any preparations been made for a transfer of
power. These were obvious problems that were clearly visible in
1996, but no immediate solutions were evident.

In essence, what has happened over the past two years is that
Indonesians have created an opportunity for change that
previously did not exist. By and large, this has been achieved
peacefully, although there have been serious eruptions of
violence. A similar opportunity existed in the mid 1960s, and two
extremely significant changes were among the results: first, the
country set out on a new economic course that proved remarkably
successful; and second, Indonesia gave high priority to
developing good relations with its neighbors in the region. This
in turn was an important factor enabling ASEAN to become a
thriving organization that has played a critically important role
in keeping regional tensions under control and that has earned
respect throughout the world President Soeharto deserves enormous
credit for these changes.

Despite the high hopes of reformers at the time, however, the
political system under the New Order remained authoritarian
rather than open and participatory, even as economic development
and strides in education contributed to an information
revolution. Over time, this contributed to distortions in
economic policy and built up political tensions that finally
found an outlet in the events of 1998.

Just as in 1966, the new government will have an unprecedented
opportunity to put Indonesia on a new course. Decisions made
early in the new administration could well determine how long and
how open opportunities for further change remain. Whoever becomes
president of Indonesia at the November session of the People's
Consultative Assembly (MPR) will need to demonstrate quickly both
the pace and the direction of the reform measures he or she will
pursue. Otherwise, old ways and habits will just as quickly
regain their hold. As an outside observer, I would place these
challenges into three broad categories: strengthening
institutions, including the present democratic political
transition; continuing economic reform; and managing diversity.

No aspect of strengthening institutions is more important than
consolidating the present democratic political transition. Over
the last four decades, I have served in nine different foreign
locations and held 18 different jobs in the diplomatic service,
but until eight weeks ago, I had never served abroad during a
free and open multi-party democratic election. I am grateful to
the people of Indonesia for giving me that experience for the
first time.

Indonesia's stunning transition toward becoming the world's
third largest democratic nation is a significant event for the
international community. Through their enthusiastic embrace of
democratic elections, Indonesians have shown that like South
Africans, Nigerians, Venezuelans, Koreans, and others all over he
world, they recognize that this is the fairest and most effective
way to provide for legitimate government that is accountable to
the people.

Obviously, if democracy is to flourish, both those elected to
lead the country, and those who are not, must participate in
government and politics constructively, settle differences
honorably, and place the best interests of the people first. As
Secretary Albright said in her speech here in Jakarta on March 5,
"So every election participant should take heart. Today's losers
may become winners tomorrow."

International attention is now turning to composition of the
MPR, which will chose the new president and vice president later
this year. We hope everyone involved in the MPR process elected
members of the parliament, appointed TNI members, and the
representatives of regions and groups in the Assembly -- will
ensure that the presidential and vice presidential selection
process is transparent and reflects the desire of the Indonesian
people for continuing democratic reform.

As we have said many times, the U. S. does not support any
individual or party. Our interest is in seeing a credible,
transparent democratic process take place that reflects the will
of the Indonesian voters. We believe that the Indonesian people
and their new political institutions, including a free press,
will ensure that the process is open and just. We look -forward
to working with whatever government emerges after the MPR
session, which we hope will meet and complete its work as
scheduled. As all of us recognize, political stability and a
lessening of current uncertainties will facilitate resolution of
other political, economic, and social issues.

Indonesia now has the opportunity to create its own
distinctive form of democracy. If the Indonesian people create a
society in which national policy decisions are made after
informed public debate, in which leaders are selected through the
ballot box; in which election winners and losers put aside
personal and party interests for the good of the nation; in which
dissenting voices are accepted as vital to testing the validity
of ideas, then Indonesia will indeed be the world's third largest
democracy. Honest differences of opinion are normal in a
pluralistic democracy. There must be a balance between necessary
government authority and the freedom of citizens to pursue their
own interests, to express their opinions without unnecessary
government interference, and to influence public policy.

In my country, America's founders wanted government to have
the authority to maintain public order and advance the national
interest, but with no powers beyond the minimum needed for those
functions. James Madison wrote, "If men were angels, no
government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men,
neither external nor internal controls on government would be
necessary. But in framing a government which is to be
administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this
-- you must first enable the government to control the governed,
and next, oblige it to control itself." It seems to me that this
is one of the basic issues to be considered here during the era
of reform.

Change, of course, cannot be accomplished overnight. To ensure
continuity to this process, one of the biggest challenges facing
Indonesia's new government will be to use this opportunity wisely
to strengthen the country's institutions so that the country is
truly governed by the rule of law and not by the whim of powerful
leaders or groups. During your first 50 years of independence,
your leaders successfully established Indonesia as an independent
nation state and achieved impressive economic development.

However, during this half century period virtually nothing was
done to develop the parliament as a genuine legislative body, to
strengthen the court system, to address the problem of deeply
rooted corruption, or to continue what the drafters of the 1945
constitution recognized was unfinished business, which was to
think creatively and imaginatively about what type of
constitution would best suit the country.

At Indonesia's present stage of development, these have become
urgent tasks. Fortunately, you are now able to draw on the
experience you have accumulated over the past five decades to
understand the strengths and weaknesses of the 1945 constitution.
Moreover, the country's stronger economic foundation and better-
educated population will contribute to the proper working of
representative government.

Most importantly, only now, in 1999, has the 1945 constitution
been used to hold genuinely free and fair elections for the
parliament. One of the strengths of the constitution is that it
proved capable of providing the framework for democratic
elections. But it would be unwise to forget that in previous
years it has also provided a framework for implementing
authoritarian government. The experience of using it for its
proper purpose has, more than anything else, revealed what needs
to be changed and where it would be dangerous to tinker.

From my perspective as a foreigner, much of the debate about
constitutional change has been far, too abstract. Even a casual
reading of the constitution in the light of the experience
provided by the June 7 parliamentary elections would suggest some
of the basic areas that need to be addressed. These become even
clearer when we look at the problems that arise when the
constitution is used as the basis for a multi-candidate
presidential selection process, as it will be this year for the
first time in your history as an independent country.

I am not a constitutional scholar, of course, so these
observations should be treated as an effort to contribute to an
informed debate. It is obviously for Indonesians themselves to
decide what should be done. In that spirit, let me offer some
thoughts on various aspects of the 1945 constitution.

Based on your experience this year, the public discourse on
political change that we have heard from across the political
spectrum here, and international experience with constitutional
development, there are at least four broad areas where changing
the 1945 Constitution, or using its own provisions, would
strengthen its commitment to making Indonesia a state in which
the people are sovereign and where democracy will ensure social
justice for the whole Indonesian people. These include the
sections of the Constitution dealing with:

* Choosing the people's representatives through a democratic
process;

* Limiting power and providing checks and balances among
institutions of government to prevent or curb abuses of power;

* Guaranteeing fundamental rights and freedoms; and

* Keeping the Constitution a living document by using its
provisions for amendment.

Let us briefly look at these for areas

First is the question of how your national leaders are
selected. Article 2 of the constitution provides that the
People's Consultative Assembly or MPR will consist of the Council
of People's Representatives, that is, the parliament or DPR,
augmented by delegates from the regional territories and groups
as prescribed by statute. The constitution does not specify the
number of such delegates who can participate in electing the
president. Under President Soeharto it was 500. Now it is 200. It
could be 20. It could be 2,000. All would be constitutional if
the electoral law was drafted that way. Nor is it specified that
these delegates be elected rather than appointed. Not
surprisingly, this vagueness provides a giant loophole that
undermines the constitution's utility as a guarantor of
democratic governance.

Similarly, Article 19 does not provide that members of the DPR
should be elected, a fundamental requirement of any democratic
system of government. It merely specifies that the structure of
the DPR shall be established by law. Such vagueness is an
invitation to abuse. Surely, by their performance in the June 7
elections, Indonesians have earned the right to have the
Constitution specify that the DPR must be an elected body.

On the question of selecting the President and Vice President,
Article 6 does provide that the President and Vice President
should be elected by the MPR by majority vote, but there is even
disagreement over the meaning of the term "by majority vote"
(dengan suara yang terbanyak). Moreover, some are now proposing
that the president should be elected-directly by the people. How
to revise the constitution to accomplish this will require
careful study since electing the president and vice president is
one of the principal functions of the MPR, along with drawing up
the broad outlines of state policy (GBHN) and determining the
constitution. Aside from this question, Article 7, as many have
already pointed out, does not specify how many times the
president and vice president can be reelected. Many countries
with democratic systems of government have found it desirable to
limit terms in some fashion.

Of lesser importance, but potentially significant in a
succession scenario, the constitution does not specify that the
president and vice president should be politically compatible
with each other. In theory, the MPR has the authority to elect a
president from one party and a vice president from an opposing
group. This would raise serious succession issues. The United
States encountered this problem at an early point in our history,
and we found it necessary to amend our constitution to correct
it.