Learning from the transfer of power

Learning from the transfer of power

Controversy over whether or not the government should continue
with its plan to hold a seminar to discuss the last public speech
made by the late president Sukarno in 1966 continues. The speech
titled Nawaksara (nine points) is an accountability of his
administration a year after the communist putsch. J. Soedjati
Djiwandono, a political observer from the Centre for Strategic
and International Studies, takes a look at the controversy.

JAKARTA (JP): History can never be explained to the full.
Different versions and interpretations are presented. And these
often change in the course of time. Indeed, historians thrive on
this. They never run out of arguments.

This is not meant to be cynical. The point is that new records
and new facts keep coming to light, while many more may remain
unearthed or banned for a period of time or for good. This is
true with such historical events as World War I, the Russian
Revolution, World War II, Pearl Harbor, the revolution in Eastern
Europe, and the Vietnam War.

It is likely even more so with more recent history such as the
communist coup attempt of 1965 (Gestapu) in Indonesia. And the
fall of president Sukarno formed part of the aftermath of the
Gestapu.

So if a single seminar on Nawaksara, a speech delivered by the
late president Sukarno three decades ago which led to his
downfall, is expected to provide the young generation with an
adequate understanding of what really happened, it may not be
worth the effort. If it is to reaffirm the government's version,
it may be counterproductive. In any event, what is the urgency,
anyway? What is the relevance to today's pressing problems?

All sorts of tricky questions may arise in such a seminar.
President Sukarno was accused and found guilty of violating the
constitution, and thus stripped of all his power. But was the
Provisional People's Consultative Assembly (MPRS) itself legal
and constitutional in the first place?

After all, the 1945 Constitution does not allow for a
provisional consultative assembly, except in the form of the
National Central Committee created after the proclamation of
independence and the enactment of the 1945 Constitution pending a
general election.

Originally, the members of the MPRS were personally appointed
by president Sukarno himself, after he dissolved the Constituent
Assembly and the House of Representatives resulting from the
general election in 1955.

But in the wake of the Gestapu, new members of the MPRS were
appointed by the New Order government to fill the seats left
vacant by members, supporters and sympathizers of the banned and
persecuted Indonesia Communist Party and its affiliated mass
organizations.

These new members were certainly supporters of the New Order.
Perhaps no one remembers exactly how many there were. But it must
have been enough to ensure victory for the New Order and defeat
for president Sukarno in the event of voting when a special
session of the MPRS was convened.

Was the MPRS then any more legal and constitutional? Was it
therefore competent to demand accountability from president
Sukarno and subsequently to depose him?

Perhaps there are no easy answers to any of those or similar
questions. One may be accused of siding with the Old Order and of
opposing the New Order just for raising those questions, even
today, and thus of being "against Pancasila and the 1945
Constitution." But judging by the emotion of the times, with
overwhelming anti-Communist and anti-Sukarno sentiments, such
questions most probably never crossed any one's mind.

However, the right lessons should be learned from back then:
to reject any tendency toward any form of absolute power and to
prevent any less-than-peaceful way of leadership change. We
should not repeat history. Constitutional or not, the changing
guard from the Old Order to the New Order was anything but
peaceful.

The coming general election is an opportunity to start a new
tradition of a peaceful change of national leadership. Otherwise
we may again bear a historical burden, in which case we would get
what we deserve.