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.