Patience and the attainment of democracy in Indonesia

Patience and the attainment of democracy in Indonesia

Leng C. Tan, Visiting Fellow, Soegeng Sarjadi Syndicated, Jakarta

If the pace of reform is slow, the patience of the populace
begins to fray. It is an ironic feature of the Megawati
government's success, in delivering a measure of macroeconomic
and political stability to Indonesia, that it has helped to make
possible this surge in social demands.

It is also a misfortune that the government is facing the
people's frustration as her tenure comes at the tail end of a
period marked by the presidential terms of her predecessors, B.J.
Habibie and Abdurrahman Wahid (Gus Dur). But, as the English
saying goes, the devil takes the hindmost.

The violent turn taken by some of last month's demonstrations
saddened an Indonesian scholar friend of mine, who said this did
not augur well for next year's general election. The protesters
have demanded that the heads of state resign from office. A
coalition of social forces drove Habibie out of office. Ditto Gus
Dur. Is it going to be ditto for Megawati too, as was attempted
in January over the utility price hikes? He asked what all those
dramatic summary dismissals of presidents before their time said
about institution-building or democracy in Indonesia.

There is only a year or so to go before the next presidential
election. Would demonstrators, he asked, allow it to go on record
that the lawful, presidential tenure of the Megawati government
held to the end of its term, as the law stipulates? That finally
the rule of law would have prevailed -- if nowhere else -- at the
executive branch of the government, where the law governing the
stable tenure of the presidential office stands?

And, most of all, that the office of the presidency was
institutionalized, whatever might be the flaws of its incumbent?
The electorate has made its choice and must live with it.

A life-long democratic reformer himself, I asked what did he
do when his despondency got the better of him. He said he turned
to the early democratic history of America and remembered the
following: "Complaints are everywhere heard -- that our
governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded
in the conflicts of rival parties and that measures are too often
decided, not according to the rules of justice -- but by the
superior force of an interested and overbearing party."

The words came from James Madison, a founding father of the
U.S. constitution, in Federalist Papers No 10.

So, those who feel discouraged that the reform movement has
gone nowhere after five years can perhaps seek some solace in the
early beginnings of American democracy and draw strength from it
to carry on their struggle. This current paragon of democracy in
the U.S. also had its travails in the early days of democratic
growth.

No one is suggesting here, in looking at the 200-year
democratic history of America, that Indonesia's evolutionary
journey toward democracy should take as long as that. The
patience of a people is finite, and that is how it should be. But
democracy needs stability, too, in order to grow undisturbed, and
that vital condition has been delivered by the Megawati
government.

For a country that has undergone much political turmoil in its
recent history, that is no mean achievement.

American democracy was the result of more than a two-century-
long quest by courageous people who fought for the improvement of
their society, which saw its apotheosis when the black community
was enfranchised by the Johnson administration in the 1960s. And
that was only about 40 years ago.

It came about via the civil rights movement in the 1950s. So,
American history is littered with social movements, big and
small, seeking to improve the workings of democracy. Indonesia's
contemporary history must do no less.

My scholar friend turned to contemporary American corporate
history and cited the example of the new CEO Samuel Palmisano,
who is returning IBM to the greatness it once was. He read in
BusinessWeek that Palmisano, unlike his predecessor, Gerstner,
took several million dollars from his own 2003 bonus and gave it
to his top executives, based on teamwork.

"You have to walk the talk, right?" He also dissolved the
powerful corporate executive committee because bureaucracy could
inhibit excellence. In its place, Palmisano created three
management teams: for strategy, operations and technology. And
instead of selecting only high-level executives for each team, he
picked managers and engineers most familiar with the issues, in
order to gather their know-how -- "deep process insights". There
are useful lessons here for the new government to draw upon.

The new president next year can signal to the nation that it
is not going to be business as usual, but everyone's interests
will be accommodated to a certain degree within the spirit of
gotong-royong (mutual self-help). There needs to be some kind of
national reconciliation that we are all citizens of this nation
and are all in this together.

So, let us do our utmost to lift the economic tide of this
nation so all our boats can be lifted; those of the rich and the
poor. In this era of globalization, we should not be fighting
each other but helping each other to wage the external
competition better: That under this new presidency, there will be
such IBM-like changes that will bring hope to the people again.
And that, above all, the change will be carried out gradually, to
give people time to adjust to the new reality.

Can such a presidency come to pass? Much has been said that in
Indonesian culture, if the leader can lead by example, the people
will follow. So, my friend remains hopeful as long as the slate
of presidential contenders is all men and women of honor, who
stand by their words and act accordingly.

There was too much talk in this country, he said. There was a
dire need for the national leadership to walk the talk. The
people were waiting for deeds. Once they saw that good leadership
was on board and acting in good faith, there would be little need
to protest and demonstrate. Patience could then become a true
watchword because, this time, there would be something to watch:
A government that was for the people.