Indonesia's Pancasila democracy exists in name only

Achdiat Karta Mihardja, one of Indonesia's best-known writers who now lives in Canberra, talked to The Jakarta Post's contributor Dewi Anggraeni recently about leadership in Indonesia. Achdiat, who turned 90 this month, is a member of the Pudjangga Baru school of literature whose famous novel Atheis has been adopted as a prescribed text in university studies in a number of countries.

Question: You have not only been able to live through the eras of Sukarno, Soeharto, Habibie and now Abdurrahman Wahid, but as a writer of fiction with social content, you are more involved in the political realm than the average Indonesian. How would you describe Indonesia in these successive eras?

Answer: In actual fact, I am currently writing a novel which historically is set right across the time before the Dutch, until now. I see that our political leaders, Sukarno, Hatta, Soeharto, Habibie and now Gus Dur, have so far failed to implement the fundamental principles and ideology of Pancasila democracy. Yet we were so united during the time of the revolution. As a nation we rallied all our strength to fight the Dutch. We won the revolution, based on Pancasila. But we only got as far as achieving independence.

While Sukarno was a great thinker, he has his weaknesses, one of which was his oversized ego. He couldn't incorporate his idealism into a real world, and that was his downfall.

Sukarno was very inventive. When he implemented his concept of guided democracy, he also created new bodies, such as the High Council of Deliberation, the military's functional role in the government. But as I said before, he was unrealistic. For instance, when he instituted Nasakom, (an acronym for the nationalist, religion and communist political forces he sought to unite), what was he thinking?

How could he expect religious people to accept the communists as bedfellows? Apart from the fact that communism is atheistic in nature, most of the religious people were better off than the bulk of the population. Many of them had land, or were rich traders, so the concept of communism wouldn't have sat well with them. Sukarno, however, driven by his ego, tried to force these factions to unite. Nothing works well when forced.

Hatta was more realistic. Take the time of the Roundtable Conference, Sukarno was carried away by his self-confidence and demanded the impossible, but Hatta knew that what we got from the Dutch then, was the best we could get. We had been fighting a revolution for five long years, and we were physically exhausted. You see, the population had been living in dire conditions since the colonial days under the Dutch, during the Japanese occupation, then during the revolution.

There had not been any improvement in the economy. They had very little to eat, very little to wear. I knew this, because I was in the guerrilla movement, not as a fighter, but as a journalist. The fighters were exhausted. The Dutch had sophisticated weapons while we only had sharpened bamboo sticks and antiquated guns, apart from the odd rifle appropriated from, or left by the Japanese.

In Garut for instance, whenever someone shouted, "The Dutch are coming! The Dutch are coming!" instead of confronting them, people would flee and seek cover. How could you expect these people to face sophisticated tanks in their condition?

When parliamentary democracy was instituted, Sukarno was like a bull seeing a red rag waving before him. Basically he didn't like differences of opinion, especially if they differed from his. He dismissed the parliament and instituted instead, his own concept, guided democracy. That way power was absolutely in his hands, none devolved to the parties. Sukarno became a dictator.

Why was it so easily accepted by the majority?

Maybe because it sat well with the feudal mentality of the population at the time. But it didn't last. Internationally he only received significant support from Russia and China. The United States and other capitalist countries shunned him. Finally it collapsed.

Yet Indonesians were still united by a patriotic fervor, what went wrong after that?

The political leaders so far, Sukarno, Hatta, Soeharto, Habibie and now Gus Dur, have not succeeded in seriously implementing the fundamental principles and ideology of Pancasila. In the revolutionary era we were able to unite our patriotic energy to fight Dutch colonialism. We were faithful to Pancasila. And we were able to seize independence. Hitherto we have failed. Why? Because our leaders and those around them yielded to the temptation of corruption.

What are the criteria of a good president?

There are five essential criteria. First, the person has to be a nationalist, meaning not regionalist; second, the person has to have a good character and a sound mind; third, he or she must have a strong will to work and sacrifice for the sake of and the good of the nation. Fourth, he or she must have strong faith and be on good terms with God. I emphasize God, not merely religion. When you have strong faith and are on good terms with God, you have self-confidence and humility at the same time. Fifth, the person must know the danger aptly coined by Lord Acton, 'Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power, corrupts absolutely.'

In your view, does Gus Dur fit those criteria?

I don't know whether he is aware or whether he will always be aware of what Lord Acton said about power. I have only heard that he's a stubborn man, a bad listener with regards to other people's opinions, criticism or advice. Arrogant? I don't know. Too early to say. He has only been in power less than two years. However, I have begun to ask questions about his soundness of mind, after observing his behavior.

How could he leave for overseas when the country was in crisis? Pragmatically, international relations could be equally well-handled by the appropriate ministers, while he could concentrate on more pressing domestic matters. However, I must admit that the countries he visited might take it more seriously if the President himself came to visit.

In your view, in what way is Gus Dur better than the previous presidents?

I trust him in his interreligious tolerance. I hope he remains that way. Having said that, he has yet to show leadership in overcoming the violence resulting from interreligious conflict in various parts of Indonesia. However, that might have nothing to do with his stance on interreligious tolerance. It is political. Gus Dur has a mega-task before him. It also brings home the realization that being able to lead a 30 million strong organization doesn't automatically mean that you can lead a country comprising various ethnic, religious and interest groups.

Are the recent incidents of interreligions and interethnic conflict the result of Gus Dur's mistaken judgment or of his negligence?

The seeds of the conflicts had begun during Soeharto's rule. They were well suppressed, but never addressed. What we see is the result of three decades of suppression.

Let me tell you a story. When Indonesia Muda (Indonesian Youth) was founded in 1931, I helped found the Solo branch. Even then I thought, why only have an Indonesian group? Why should groups like Javanese Youth (Jong Java), Sumatran Youth (Jong Sumatra), Sulawesi Youth (Jong Celebes), Sekar Rukun (a Sundanese group), be melted together, burying their individual identities?

I remember that in Sekar Rukun, people were very much aware that, we had not only to nurture our oneness, but also our diversity, which we had to bring together for unity's sake. I think that side of our nation building has been neglected.

Gus Dur is just beginning to address the problem by instituting regional autonomy. That is a good start. However it is not easy to contain the anger that had been seething over a long period of time.

So you believe in a pluralist nation?

Yes, but we have to be wise and careful in managing it. No doubt the centralized system has caused resentment on the part of the rich regions. Aceh and Riau, for example, rank highest in their income contribution to the central coffers. Yet they only get back ten percent. That is obviously unfair. However, we also have to remember that not all regions are rich in resources, some are indeed poor. Here we need sound reasoning and fairness. Since we all belong to one nation, we have to distribute revenues to regions according to what those regions need.

How do you avoid friction and disharmony between ethnic groups or other kinds of groups?

I think the President should have competent, expert advisors around him, so that the government can demonstrate strong leadership. I mean strong leadership in the sense of wisdom and fairness. Take the Madura-Dayak conflict now, I don't think the problem is merely economic or of ethnicity. It is both and more. We need to review our transmigration policy. We need to study the attitudes of the newcomers vis-a-vis the indigenous population, for instance. In many instances, the newcomers treat the indigenous people with contempt. How do we address this problem? -- That sort of thing.

Apart from interreligious and interethnic conflict, there is also rivalry between Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) and Muhammadiyah, yet they are both Muslim organizations. Can you comment on this?

I think the problem lies in the difference of styles. NU is more traditional, while Muhammadiyah tends to be intellectual- modern. Yet, when you examine it closer, it also depends on the individuals in those organizations. Many NU members are intellectuals with modern ways of thinking. Gus Dur himself in many ways shows modern attitudes and ways of thinking. I see the difference in the syariah, in the outer layer. For example, they have different ways of dressing, expressing themselves, interactions with friends and acquaintances. In terms of their religious core and faith, they are basically the same. Of course that might have implications on the way they regard leadership.

Do you think Megawati is presidential material?

I don't know Megawati personally, I can only base my opinions on observations. I was shocked however to hear that Megawati once said that she wouldn't take any action unless she had received revelations from her late father.

Now that is a worry, because as a president, she would find herself in situations where she would have to take immediate action. I hope what I heard was only hearsay. On the other hand, I do admire her for her ability to rally so much grass-roots support, and to lead such a big and powerful party as PDI-P (Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle).

Apart from that, I also hear that Megawati is surrounded by clever and erudite advisors. However, do they make a good team? Do they also have good character? So, I can't say whether Megawati is presidential material until I am sure she fits the four criteria that I mentioned earlier.

If you were asked to paint the journey of the nation since independence in a sketch, how would you paint it?

I would paint it as dominated by mistakes derived from the wrong structure of government. It has been a top-down system, which generates a culture where people in the lower echelons become sycophants to the ones above them, and those in the higher echelons become oppressors to the ones below them. Those who manage to get to the top only think of themselves.

We need an overhaul, where power is in the hands of the people and people's representatives. Until now, Pancasila and Pancasila democracy have existed in name only, they have never been really implemented.