Megawati's silence has political purposes

Megawati's silence has political purposes

Speculation is growing concerning chairwoman of the Indonesian
Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan) Megawati
Soekarnoputri's continued silence in regard to big political
issues in the public arena. Political observer Cornelis Lay of
Gadjah Mada University in Yogyakarta provides his views on the
matter.

Question: Do you think Megawati will obtain political
advantages from her silence?

Lay: I think it's good for her to remain silent, especially
because the existing discourse has gone beyond reasonable
discussions. That is a choice that Megawati should take.
Otherwise, she will only be trapped in a disoriented discourse
that has no value for democracy building in Indonesia. She cannot
change her gender, can she? Why then should she respond to such a
debate (as to whether a woman can become a president of this
Muslim-dominated country)?

In such a public debate, anything Megawati says will only give
her rivals other reasons to keep on ngotot (insisting they are
right). Currently, we have too many people talking too much. What
we need is a figure who is willing to listen. For some people,
Megawati probably has listened too much. But it could be what we
really need for the time being. Besides, is it true that things
will be settled once Megawati opens her mouth? That's nonsense.

Q: Some people speculate that Megawati's silence is to avoid any
differences with the military, from whom she may need political
support in the forthcoming General Assembly of the People's
Consultative Assembly (MPR). What is your comment?

L: That's just speculation. Which political force do you think
suffered the most at the hands of the Armed Forces during the New
Order era? It was PDI Perjuangan. If she wanted to be in favor
with the Armed Forces, she would have never described the Armed
Forces' presence in the House of Representatives (DPR) as
improper. She said in Bali the military should be gradually
removed from the House.

Unfortunately, Indonesians are verbal people. Talking is
considered the same as doing. It's true that Megawati, to some
extent, has been overly quiet. However, for the sake of political
negotiations, she does need to know the final result of the vote
count. It would be stupid on her part if she, imagining her party
as the winner of the last general election, formed a coalition
with a certain party, but in the end Golkar won the elections.
That would be stupid wouldn't it?

Moreover, why should it be Megawati who must speak? PDI
Perjuangan has many representatives. Kwik (Kian Gie) has spoken
up. Dimyati (Hartono) has spoken up. Others have spoken up. Don't
they represent anything? Besides, being a president is not
Megawati's agenda. It is PDI Perjuangan's. That's why you should
take a look at PDI Perjuangan's agenda, not Megawati's (plans).
Otherwise, what would the difference be between us and (former
president) Soeharto?

Q: But the party has nominated Megawati as its presidential
candidate, hasn't it?

L: That's true. But what she is offering is PDI Perjuangan's
agenda. That's why she never says she will do this or that if she
is elected president. It's far more logical in the current system
to follow the party's policies that she is nominated as a
presidential candidate. Therefore, it's not relevant to insist
that the party's leader speaks her mind. It's the party that
formulates everything. And it is clear that people have supported
it. If they did not want Megawati to be president, they would not
have voted for PDI Perjuangan. That's concrete. Now it's time for
us to wait and see what the party will do.

Q: People are wondering about Megawati's precise stance on
several parties' demands for the amendment of the 1945
Constitution, the abolition of the Indonesian Military's (TNI)
dual sociopolitical function and the trial of Soeharto. What is
your comment?

L: That's exactly why we should see things objectively. Megawati
was the one who suffered most during the New Order era. About the
abolition of TNI's dual function, who says she does not agree to
it? She does. It was also Megawati who was the first to say that
the next president's accountability speech should not be approved
unless corruption matters were asserted.

In pursuing reform, we are trapped with terms such as "dual
function". If that is the case, it will be hard (to handle the
problem). Would we consider Soeharto a reformist, (someone who)
deserved a presidential position, just because he said, for
example, he would revoke the dual function of the military,
submit a letter of approval to track down his wealth and agree to
amend the Constitution?

Q: PDI Perjuangan has no agenda regarding the amendment of the
1945 Constitution, despite the fact that it will be advantageous
for the party? What do you say?

L: An amendment to the Constitution will indeed benefit PDI
Perjuangan. The problem is that the present discussion on the
proposed amendment of the Constitution is not based on an aim to
build a new system. Instead, it is merely based on empirical
experience that the country's first two presidents were elected
on the basis of the same system, and both developed undemocratic
governments.

Who can guarantee that an amendment will not lead to a
decision that the Indonesian president must be a man? It makes
sense, therefore, that Megawati keeps silent about Constitutional
amendment proposals. (swa)