Indonesia's tragedy today is a crisis of leadership

Indonesia's tragedy today is a crisis of leadership

Five months after Soeharto stepped down, student protesters
are still stalking the House of Representatives compound,
creating traffic snarls almost every day. Political observer J.
Soedjati Djiwandono traces today's complex political map.

JAKARTA (JP): A free-for-all is what Indonesia in the
immediate post-Soeharto era is all about. Is this the real
meaning of the reform era? No way!

We have reached the gate of the house of reform, and it is
only slightly ajar. Two forces are at loggerheads on either side
of the entrance. The one outside is trying to force it wide open,
the other striving to keep it tightly shut.

Indeed, the Indonesian press has never enjoyed this degree of
freedom before. But if the press used to be mostly unreliable
because it was so tightly controlled, it may be equally
unreliable now because it is free to publish almost anything that
sells. Everybody can say anything and get away with it.

Unfortunately, the dilemma seems far worse than that. People
have free rein to do almost anything, including kidnapping and
butchering other human beings like stray dogs, raping women,
vandalizing shops, looting food and goods.

Many get away with the outrages. General Wiranto agreed that
the uncontrolled mass killings in various towns in East Java are
an expression of conflicts among the political elite. So what,
General?

The monetary and economic crisis in this country, though not
the first to be hit, was exacerbated more than in, say, Thailand,
South Korea or Malaysia, by the malfunctioning of the political
system. It has led to a no less serious political crisis.

In South Korea and Thailand, the crisis has brought about a
change of leadership, by peaceful means, because the political
system works. In the Philippines, the crisis did not hinder a
smooth leadership transition. By contrast, Soeharto had to be
forced out of office by young university students through
boisterous protests and demonstrations.

The severe economic crisis has made the people aware of the
ossification of the political system, for more than three decades
manipulated to maintain the increasingly absolute power of the
New Order regime at the expense of the people.

More importantly, the crisis has emboldened the young students
to express their rejection of the regime and their demand for
reform, thereby giving voice to the wishes and aspirations of a
people for too long cowed and intimidated. The emperor has no
clothes after all!

In the hurly-burly of the resurgent student movement, who
would have thought seriously that Soeharto would so easily
knuckle under, only to be replaced by his vice president,
Habibie, the result, together with Soeharto, of manipulative
dealings.

Was this the realization of Soeharto's veiled "threat" shortly
before his resignation?

Setting aside the questions of his legitimacy and how rightful
it was for Soeharto to pick his successor, Habibie is now de
facto president. After all, there must be one president or
another to maintain the status and existence of Indonesia as a
nation-state.

However, despite the designation of his Cabinet, is President
Habibie serious about carrying on the process of reform? In his
first and hopefully last Independence Day speech he took pride in
the fact that there is now ample freedom in the country.

But that freedom is definitely not a gift from him, but a fait
accompli he had no power to do anything about.

He has indeed taken measures that look like reforms on the
surface, especially in the eyes of the politically uninitiated. A
prominent economist has termed President Habibie's economic
policies mostly populist in nature.

The same seems to apply to the political field. He has issued
an "instruction" to put an end to the use of the terms
"indigenous" and "nonindigenous" and to get rid of legal
provisions that smack of discrimination. The objectives deserve
appreciation, but not the means. His intentions are suspect.

Does the President have the constitutional power to review the
law just by an instruction? Indeed, our political system does not
have a mechanism for judicial review. This should be corrected by
creating one. That will be reform.

Our first president was wont to govern by fiat, our second by
warning and instruction. So does our third. However, our first
president was at least mostly honest, even if one disagreed with
his ways. He mostly told the truth.

Our second mostly told lies. Alas, our third does not even
seem to know the difference.

That is our tragedy today. From an economic crisis, we have
gone through a political crisis, then one of credibility and
confidence. More significantly, we now have a crisis of
leadership in our midst.