Nation must rid itself of Soehartoism

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.