Is reform a mere elusive dream?

By Russell Emmerson

JAKARTA (JP): If we choose to be lyrical, we may compare Indonesia to a giant garuda in a glass cage. Upon seeing the bounty of freedom before it, it flaps its wings and tries to soar toward it, only to bump its head on the diaphanous prison that contains it and plunge back to earth.

What is this invisible barrier that bars its way? Soeharto's regime has crumbled and the new president stands resplendent in his star-spangled batik in front of a backdrop that appears to have been painted by a frenzied, colorblind child and talks animatedly of change.

He explains at considerable length the way forward, this ebullient style lending sparkle to his carefully chosen words, but like throwing a vitamin tablet in a glass of stagnant water, his words effervesce momentarily and then revert to the murky substance of old. Perhaps this is cynical, and unfair to a clearly intelligent man in a very difficult position.

He wants so much to inject life into the empty shell that Indonesia's political and economic system has become, he wants to announce to the world that Indonesia is moving forward and that the negative perceptions disseminated so widely by the world's media are a thing of the past. He wants to engender synergy among Indonesia's diverse population, a creative cooperation that will build a new country equipped to take full advantage of its huge natural resources.

So he is expounding on solution to very real problems, but he is having to walk a tightrope in order to do so, for these are problems that were to a large extent caused by the government of which he was a part. And, indeed he still is a part, because the structure of power has not changed enough for us to truly say that Indonesia is under new leadership.

It is true that recent events have created an atmosphere of far greater transparency and openness, a more critical environment that has the potential to be constructive.

Constructive criticism, however, is not what we have seen up to this point. We are still in the phase where many citizens believe the old system must be destroyed to facilitate reform. We have witnessed that destruction; the wanton demolition and burning of property, the senseless harassment of non-pribumi (nonindigenous) residents, the looting and rioting which has added billions to Indonesia's considerable debt burden.

The burned out shells of buildings are the visible side of destruction, but on a more subtle level, we have seen the peaceful demonstrations which call for resignations, for investigations, for probes into irregularities without offering concrete alternatives to the system that they seek to bring down.

Obviously those who are demonstrating feel passionately about their cause, but there is a marked tendency to focus on the evils that reform can dispel as opposed to the fruits that it can bring.

So is this really reform? Without wishing to indulge in a discussion of semantics, no definition of reform that I know of includes the word destruction. If we seek to define reform, we may come across the word improvement and alteration, both of which suggest change as opposed to eradication.

It is like working with clay at a potter's wheel; if one forms a pot that is not sufficiently pleasing either in shape or in function, one can reshape it. We do not need to change the clay in order to do so, but we do require the skill to be able to work it into an appropriate design. And what about the old pot?

Some may rue its loss; they may have liked its shape if not its function. There are Indonesians who are vocal in their criticism of the functional aspects of government and the bureaucratic obstacles that it creates, but when asked to change their lifestyles in accordance with the remolding of these systems they will be unwilling to comply.

If this is the case, will the current trend for reform go the same way as the closed-door policy on the mikrolet public transport vehicles?

If we cast our minds back, we will recall that this initiative to improve the safety of public transportation was a novelty for a few weeks. It was idealistically sound but the people did not genuinely support it so it was phased out, forgotten about and became just another relic in the wasteland of an undisciplined society.

Resistance to change is commonplace and this is the glass cage in which garuda must find a door. The key to the door is a truly visionary leader, a man or woman with the ability to envisage the benefits of change and communicate them with great potency to every strata of society.

This does not mean indoctrination; that is a repressive road that has already been traveled and has bred suspicion rather than trust. What is required is a systematic process of reeducation and this has to start at the top echelons of society, those who often believe they have nothing left to learn, and then cascade through every level of society in an undiluted, innovative and convincing form.

Any fundamental changes in the structure of government and leadership philosophy will bring about hardship, particularly when the economy is already ailing. A new leader must have the courage to ask the population to go hungry today in order that they may eat well tomorrow.

Recent reports have shown that this has become more than a metaphor, there are shortages which must be addressed, distribution systems which must be restructured and a population which must be girded against its biggest fear -- hunger.

The people must choose whether to work with a leadership that seeks to implement measures to combat these problems, or to fight against it. It is easy to be shortsighted when one is staring hunger in the face, but the looters and the rioters have shown us the costs of this fear. Their savagery has bitten off the hands that feed them and this is now beginning to rebound, not only on them, but also on millions of other decent people.

There is no leadership that can produce some magic balm to instantaneously solve these problems, but the solutions can be accelerated if the Indonesian people can minimize their resistance to the changes necessary to restore confidence in their economy.

So as we approach a general election, will the Indonesian people be blinded by their vengeance against an old system that they tacitly supported, or will they seek out and place their trust in a new leader who promotes change?

More importantly, can they truly commit themselves to values that define the path of change, or will they allow the flower of reform to be strangled by the weeds of their own intransigence?

The writer is a freelance training consultant.

Window: Constructive criticism, however, is not what we have seen up to this point. We are still in the phase where many citizens believe the old system must be destroyed to facilitate reform.