Nation must rid itself of Soehartoism

On May 21, 1998, president Soeharto was forced to resign amid bloody riots, student rallies and a crippling economic slump. Political analyst J. Soedjati Djiwandono outlines the nation's political journey over the past year.

JAKARTA (JP): Exactly a year ago, because of his inability to overcome the deepening economic crisis that had hit the country with all its dire consequences, President Soeharto was forced out of office by the reform movement spearheaded by university students. Then what on the surface had looked like national stability for over three decades suddenly turned out to be superficial and false.

Now chaos reins everywhere. We had been led to believe that the people under Soeharto lived in peace and harmony with one another, with mutual tolerance in spite of differences in racial, ethnic, religious, cultural, or linguistic backgrounds. But now the people are torn apart by ethnic and religious issues. Mass violence is becoming a special characteristic of Indonesians, running amok at the slightest provocation their special habit, resulting in the loss of hundreds of human lives.

Indonesia seems to be disintegrating. Indonesian national unity is facing a serious threat. The unitary republic is jeopardized by a new wave of separatism in a number of provinces in their demand for justice.

Indeed, Soeharto's New Order had suddenly fallen apart like a house of cards. The emperor is naked! That the present government is no better than its predecessor only serves to emphasize how rotten the whole political system had become through manipulation and nation-wide abuse of power, corruption, collusion, cronyism and nepotism at all levels. Upon his resignation, with doubtful constitutional basis, Soeharto simply handed over power to his chosen successor, Vice President Habibie, whose vice presidency formed part and parcel of his own manipulation.

I have made that point lest anyone misread changing times, thus cherishing the memories of old-time leaders because of dissatisfaction with the current leadership. In the past, disappointment with Soeharto has often led people to glorify Sukarno, just as many people in the former Soviet Union under aging Brezhnev with his weakening leadership used to yearn for Stalin. It is not unthinkable that disillusion with the Habibie government may lead people to long for a Soeharto style of seemingly strong, firm and stable leadership.

One cannot, after all, underestimate the influence of the style of Soeharto's presidency over more than three decades. A number of the new political party leaders, for instance, pay greater attention to the nomination of their presidential candidates in the face of the coming general election than to their candidates for membership of the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR), the supreme governing body in the country's political system according to the 1945 Constitution.

It is this body, not the President that will fully carry out the sovereignty of the people, and thus have the power to initiate serious political reform. It will have the power to amend or even to change the constitution, if necessary.

To be sure, nomination of candidates for the presidency by the political parties prior to the general election is a step forward. This seems to suit the mood of many people in society, who, fed up with Soeharto's presidency and finding that of Habibie lacking in legitimacy, credibility and competence, are more preoccupied with the issue of the possible future president than anything else.

Of greater importance, however, is surely the nomination of the right candidates for House of Representatives (DPR)/MPR membership. They should be people with adequate knowledge and understanding of what proper reform really implies and what should be done to achieve the right goal. They should also know how to go about it, so they should have the necessary skills.

Indeed, as President, Soeharto might have manipulated the constitution from the start, and in the process he was increasingly corrupted by power. Soeharto could not have done so, however, if the system had provided for an effective control mechanism. Reform ought to start from here, for this seems to be the main weakness of the 1945 Constitution.

The 1945 Constitution is an ambiguous document in that it is a combination of democratic principles and dictatorial powers. Thus the weakness of the 1945 Constitution is basically systemic, inherent in the system itself. Soeharto, however, proved himself shrewd and adept at taking advantage of it.

Soeharto succeeded in making the presidency so powerful and thus so attractive and alluring that party leaders now vie with one another over that position, seemingly thinking that as President, if in the name of reform, they would be able to do anything they like.

In fact, without a fundamental change in the constitution and in the electoral system, the President not being elected directly by the people and not separately from the legislative bodies, we will continue to have a strong potential for a dictatorship in the style of president Soeharto.

The process of reform would go nowhere if we fail to understand the nature of the problem we face, if we would only replace Soeharto with another Soeharto without reforming the political system in a fundamental way towards a separation of powers in a proper system of checks and balances.

Indeed, for the sake of reform, we need to learn not only from our own past experiences, but also from the experiences of other nations. I, for one, would like to see over the long run, the Indonesian system of government developing toward the American or French style.

First of all, however, we must reform ourselves. We need to liberate ourselves from Soehartoism -- the spirit, mental attitude, way of thinking, and even the language of Soeharto.