Local politicians unclear about ethics, values

J. Soedjati Djiwandono, Political Analyst, Jakarta

Indonesian politics is always full of confusion and misunderstanding, even, or perhaps especially, among politicians. What a contrast. Under Soeharto we were taught to be proud of our "Indonesian style" and "Indonesian tradition" of democracy, even if in reality we had neither.

Today, our confusion, or "misunderstanding", is seldom admitted by politicians. The confusion is either explained away by 32 years of experience under the authoritarian regime of Soeharto's "Pancasila democracy". I would say almost 40 years, because authoritarianism here began with Sukarno's "guided democracy". Or it is considered a consequence of our "muddling through" the process of democracy.

The main reason, however, has been a consequence of politicians' undue concern over short-term personal and sectarian interests, which account for their reluctance to learn from their own past mistakes and from the experiences of other more democratically advanced nations.

And their acquaintance with "Pancasila morality" during the era of Soeharto's indoctrination has contributed to their confusion about "morality", "ethics", and "etiquette", and how these concepts relate to one another.

This is not to suggest that there is no ethics at all in Indonesian politics. It does suggest, however, that the moral and ethical values among Indonesian politicians are, again, either vague or turned upside down. Once under president Abdurrahman Wahid (Gus Dur), a coordinating minister resigned from the cabinet -- unprecedented since Soeharto's time -- on the grounds that the cabinet was about to undergo a reshuffle, and his resignation was meant to pave the way for the setting up of a new cabinet by the president. He wanted, he said, to adhere to proper "political ethics."

He forgot -- or did not understand -- that ministers of an outgoing cabinet are expected to carry on with their work, though they are not supposed to make vital decisions. Or else there would be a vacuum, and one can imagine the kind of vacuum of power in the country if all the members of an outgoing cabinet should withdraw simultaneously! He probably thought, and many did think, that he was a hero by doing that.

In fact, for the right reason, it would have been a good precedent, for under Soeharto no cabinet minister had ever resigned for whatever reason. But that particular coordinating minister did it for the wrong reason at the wrong time.

It is not accurate to say that Indonesians have no sense of shame. What is wrong with many Indonesians is that in their understanding of ethics in politics, their values are turned upside down. They tend to be ashamed of something they should be proud of, and to be proud of something should be ashamed of.

Under Soeharto, Indonesians were taught to be proud of the fact that our "Indonesian" political system did not uphold the principle of a separation of powers (trias politica), and thus it had no system of checks and balances, something that in fact we should be ashamed of, for it would inevitably lead to absolute power. Cabinet ministers were not encouraged to resign as an expression of responsibility for some mishap under their departments. To do so would be regarded as shirking their responsibilities. Hence the habit of seeking a scapegoat instead.

Indeed, that habit has a lot to do with the way children, from their early years, were educated, perhaps particularly in Javanese families. That kind of education of young children continues even today, in which toddlers are never taught to be responsible for the smallest accidents that befall them. They must instead find fault with somebody or something else. Whenever a child trips over a small table, adults comfort the crying youngster by assuring that it is the table that is "naughty", rather than blame the child for being careless.

Another case concerns Central Bank Governor Syahril Sabirin. Since Gus Dur became President, he has been declared a suspect in a banking scandal. Yet, now that the Central Bank -- the Bank of Indonesia -- has been made an independent institution outside the Cabinet, he has never indicated his intention to resign, maintaining that his position as governor of the central bank was dependent on the legislature (DPR). And most probably to serve its own interest, neither has the DPR ever indicated its intention to relieve him from office.

Akbar Tandjung, DPR Speaker and chairman of the Golkar Party, has also been declared a suspect in a financial scandal -- the "Buloggate II" (Buloggate I related to president Gus Dur).

Yet despite widespread demand and pressure, not only from certain political parties but also many in society, and clearly with no sense of shame, the poker-faced Akbar refuses to step down, stating that based on the presumption of innocence, being a suspect does not mean he is proven guilty. He is certainly right on that score. He simply has no sense of morality or ethics.

And the Golkar Party under his leadership has continued to support him, saying that there are no rules or regulations that being a suspect would prevent an official from continuing to occupy his post. These politicians simply miss the point. A code of ethics does not necessarily take the form of written rules. Here lies the importance of the development of conventions.

A no less serious case concerns Minister of Transportation Agum Gumelar. In the past year alone, there have been almost a dozen train accidents resulting in the loss of dozens of human lives and the suffering of many wounded people, not to mention material and financial losses. Yet the minister has refused to step down, retorting that the demands for his resignation should be directed to those people who are "operators", not people like him who are among "regulators".

Which one was more responsible, the "regulator", who makes decisions, or the "operator" who is supposed to carry out the regulator's decisions or regulations? It is such simple logic! Unfortunately none of those journalists present raised such a simple question.

He also said, "I am a cabinet minister under the authority of the President. If I should resign, but the President does not concur, what should I do?" Interestingly, again, no one asked: 1. whether the minister had actually tendered his resignation to the President. 2. whether the President had actually turned down his resignation. Those would have been important questions, for the minister used "conditional sentences", not statements of facts!

Indeed, there are other cases, some of which relate to President Megawati Soekarnoputri herself. The few cases examined here, however, should suffice to show how little respect Indonesian politicians hold for political ethics.