Indonesia's Pancasila democracy exists in name only

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.