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.