Indonesia trapped in gray zone

Bara Hasibuan, Political Analysts, Jakarta

After four years of the reform era following the fall of Soeharto from power, Indonesia now deserves to be categorized as one of the countries trapped in a politically gray zone. Such a situation must prompt us to analyze whether Indonesia is today really in a political transition heading toward a consolidation of democracy or at a standstill without making significant progress.

This view refers to countries that are often assumed to be in a political transition. Although at a certain level they show democratic attributes and procedures like political and press freedom, routine and clean general elections and independent and strong civil society, essentially they still face severe erosion in political life. Their public institutions are weak and corrupt.

Public officials often abuse their authority and ignore the public interest in the formal political process. People's confidence in those institutions is low. With such characteristics, countries in the gray zone have not made significant progress and, therefore, cannot be assumed to be on the way to consolidated democracy.

However, the possibility that they will be back under an authoritarian power is small as democracy is the only promising alternative. Moreover, military institutions in those countries are generally still weak and do not have enough strength to retrieve power, for instance, by launching a coup. In brief, those countries have entered the gray zone, have remained at a standstill and are trapped between authoritarianism and democracy.

According to Thomas Carothers, a researcher at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, countries in the gray zone manifest the "feckless pluralism syndrome", meaning they are democratic only in appearance, as the political quality of life in those countries is very low.

The political elite and political parties in those countries are believed to be corrupt and mindful only of their own interests. They ignore the fate of the people and the country. Corruption has become more widespread and endemic among the political elite, political parties, the executive and legislators.

The public still has confidence in democracy, but is disappointed with and has no more confidence in the political elite, political parties and other public institutions. It has seen politics as a dirty and rotten thing, which is dominated by a small number of figures who ignore the fate of the nation.

Based on people's consensus on a reform process that has been running for four years, Indonesia has shown the feckless pluralism syndrome and is trapped in the gray zone.

Indonesia, with its formal political processes like the general election, press freedom, political freedom and strong civil society, is a democratic country in appearance only because of the poor democratic life in the country.

The political elite in Megawati Soekarnoputri's administration and the House of Representatives (DPR) have compromised with the pro-status quo group and therefore failed to take firm steps in carrying out the reform agenda.

There are several examples.

First, the formation of a special committee on Bulog (State Logistics Agency) nonbudgetary funds is under the threat of failure because of political bargaining and lack of attention to law enforcement and the eradication of corruption.

Second, legal sanctions against errant tycoons and generals allegedly responsible for human rights violations in the past have not run smoothly.

Third, reform in the Indonesian Military (TNI) has been very slow, as civilian politicians still involve TNI members in their political bargaining.

Nevertheless, the possibility that Indonesia will fall again into the trap of authoritarianism seems to be small. The public apparently still feels life's traumas as they were under the Soeharto regime, which was corrupt and full of human rights violations.

The TNI is today undergoing change and is still in the public spotlight over a number of human rights violation cases, which have rendered the institution incapable of recovering its authority.

The possibility of the emergence of a strong man like Soeharto is small. Thus, we have to realize that the nation is trapped in the gray zone and at a standstill, instead of undergoing a transition to consolidated democracy.

But the nation still has the opportunity to escape from the gray zone. To that end, it is necessary for political leaders to take concrete as well as symbolic political measures, especially in connection with law enforcement.

Thus, the only solution is waiting for the emergence of a new political generation, which may not occur until 2004. But it is unpredictable. So the public must be patient.