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)