Is democratization in Indonesia plausible?

Is democratization in Indonesia plausible?

With the President already at an advanced age, succession of
power has always loomed large in Indonesian politics. Arief
Budiman examines the issue.

JAKARTA (JP): During my public talks, many people have asked
me about succession in Indonesia. Would it be peaceful or
violent? Evolutionary or revolutionary? Or a mixture of the two?

This concern is understandable, because the President is quite
old now. He said in the early 1990s that if people think he is no
longer capable to govern the country, he has to be replaced. He
said jokingly that he was already "TOP" meaning tua, ompong dan
pikun (old, toothless and senile), so somebody has to be prepared
to replace him.

Although the Constitution stipulates how succession has to be
conducted, everybody knows that important political decisions are
often made by strong political figures or groups, sometimes
against existing rules. The struggle of who will be the next
president will not be decided in the MPR (People's Consultative
Council), but outside it. The council will only formalize the
decision already made somewhere else.

In his latest book, The Third Wave: Democratization in the
Late Twentieth Century (1991), American political scientist
Samuel Huntington highlighted four possible kinds of transition
from authoritarianism to democracy. The first is transformation.
In this case, the state liberalizes its political institutions
and democratization comes from above. Taiwan is one example where
democratization was initiated by the state.

The second possible kind of transition is replacement. In this
case, the state is forced to democratize by the civil society.
One example is the Philippines during the change of guard from
Ferdinand Marcos to Cory Aquino.

Intervention is the third kind of transition which involves
democratization from an external power. For instance, the case of
Panama in which U.S. forces attacked and arrested the president
of the military government. After that a democratic election was
held in the country.

Transplacement is the final kind of transition which is a
mixture between the process of "transformation" and
"replacement". The state negotiates with the people to
democratize the country. Poland is one example when Lech Walesa
from the Solidarity Union emerged as the alternative leader of
the country and began negotiations with the military. This
resulted in a democratic general election held under the auspices
of the military.

In my opinion, the most plausible option for Indonesia is
"transplacement". There are at least two reasons for this.

First, the most organized and powerful political institution
in this country is still the military. Although there are
different opinions among top military leaders on how to run this
country in the future, this institution is still relatively
unified. It would be difficult for the process of democratization
to come from Indonesian military leaders so that "transformation"
would occur. The idea of democracy is still very remote in the
minds of most military generals. For them democracy means chaos,
a situation without effective leadership.

But the power of the civil society is increasing. People now
fight back against military repression, especially after the July
27 riots. The military also has to be cautious in dealing with
the Islamic community who have become more political. The way the
military has handled the recent riots in Situbondo, Tasikmalaya,
and Rengasdengklok is proof of this. The military is now learning
that politics has to be solved through negotiation, not by
military means. However, to hope that people power would grow
strong enough to change the future government in the near future
through the process of "replacement" is unrealistic.

Another significant pressure for Indonesia to democratize
comes from the advanced industrial countries. Through the issues
of East Timor, labor rights and other alleged human rights
violations, it has become more difficult for Indonesian diplomats
to defend their country in the international fora.

Thus, it seems "transplacement" is the most possible option,
because intervention is very unlikely to happen.

Second, change is unavoidable because the strength of the
military is being challenged by the growing power of civil
society and pressured by powerful industrialized countries. The
most likely course taken by this change would be
"transplacement". If this happens, it would be supported by the
business middle classes in Jakarta.

Is "transplacement" a visible option? I believe so, and
Megawati's rise to power as chairperson of PDI in 1993-1994, is
an example of this.

At the time, the government wanted somebody else to fill the
PDI chair and therefore ousted Soerjadi in Medan. The party then
held a congress in Surabaya, the continuation of the congress in
Medan. However, the majority of PDI members nominated Megawati
and were fanatical about her. The result was a clash of interest
between the government and grassroot PDI supporters. The Surabaya
meeting became an arena for this clash. It was closed without any
clear idea on who was chairman of the party.

Later, after witnessing the determination of the majority of
PDI members to support Megawati, the government changed its mind.
Why not try Megawati? So far Megawati had been a quiet person in
her role as legislator. Although PDI was a relatively "radical"
party compared to the other parties, the government seemed to be
convinced that under Megawati, it would not be more radical.

The result was a special meeting in Jakarta in which the
process of "transplacement" took place. Megawati was officially
elected as PDI chairperson after a meeting with the then Regional
Military Commander of Jakarta Gen. Hendropriyono, and the
daughter of the president, Mbak Tutut. The leadership of PDI was
later installed, which some people suggested was a result of the
military.

Now if this process of "transplacement" on a small scale has
already happened, why wouldn't it happen again on a national
scale? In my opinion, this is a plausible option because it would
serve the interests of many existing sociopolitical and economic
groups, although maybe not to their maximum satisfaction. But
isn't politics the art of the possible?

The writer is a sociologist and researcher based in Salatiga.