People yearn for a strong leader, but not an authoritarian regime

Sugianto Tandra, Jakarta

The surprising victory of Gen. (ret) Wiranto as Golkar's presidential candidate has caused a wave of unease among reformists in the country, some of which has been reflected in various opinion pieces in The Jakarta Post over the past few days.

Suddenly, political observers and embassy officials have begun to fret that democratization in Indonesia could lead to a Soeharto-era general, who was indicted for human rights violations, becoming Indonesia's leader. Such anxiety is misplaced.

On closer inspection, what we are seeing is the ultimate triumph of the democratic forces unleashed by Indonesia's amended constitution over the status quo. Far from threatening the consolidation of democracy, Wiranto's nomination is a prelude to the popular reassertion of faith in democratic reform -- and a more conclusive break with the country's authoritarian past.

One of the most important messages to come out of the recent legislative election is that ordinary Indonesians are yearning for change. Widespread disappointment in President Megawati Soekarnoputri resulted in her party garnering only 19.5 percent of the votes counted, compared to 34 percent in 1999. Meanwhile, Golkar's share of the vote did not improve significantly on its 1999 level.

Instead, a desire for a fresh and democratic start has led to the remarkable rise of two parties: The Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) and the Democratic Party. Such trends confirm that a growing number of citizens have no desire to give up on reform.

The people are to be congratulated on the successful legislative stage of a truly democratic electoral process -- no small achievement for an electorate comprising 147 million voters spread across a vast archipelago.

Easily overlooked is the fact that this is the second time since Soeharto's resignation that an election has proceeded without significant violence. Even the carefully choreographed general elections of the Soeharto era regularly resulted in numerous fatalities, as one group of campaigners clashed with another.

True democratic responsibilities nurture respect for political difference, and this is what is developing among the electorate. Furthermore, the military has been true to its word and remained in the background. This has allowed Indonesian voters to focus on their future and reevaluate old, previously sacrosanct, party allegiances.

The resulting message seems to be twofold: Politicians who fail to deliver can expect to find themselves out of a job; and in today's Indonesia security is a primary concern.

This brings us to Golkar's surprising decision to select Wiranto as its presidential candidate. Ironically, the new selection process had been largely designed by Golkar's leader, Akbar Tandjung, no doubt in the hope that he would be its chief beneficiary. But Golkar members probably decided that Akbar would be too much of a liability given his previous conviction of corruption (albeit overturned on appeal).

Wiranto's victory certainly proves that he is popular with grass roots members of Golkar. It also suggests that he has sufficient financial wherewithal to oil the wheels of one of the country's most expensive selection processes.

However, Golkar members -- probably largely due to their traditional political roots and lingering unease over democratic change -- have misread popular sentiment for security and strong leadership in Indonesia. While they do perceive correctly the widespread desire for more assertive leadership with a particular focus on security, Golkar members have failed to distinguish the subtle difference between a desire for strong leadership and a return to a more authoritarian regime of the past.

Not only opinion polls but also recent negotiations over presidential/vice-presidential tickets all seemed to indicate that Indonesians would prefer someone with military experience in one of the top two posts. But polls also suggest that people want a former military leader who enshrines principles of reform, justice and democracy -- qualities that have made Gen. (ret) Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono such a rising political star.

In its rush to find a retired general, Golkar has misread the crucial democratic characteristics of the kind of leader that Indonesians are looking for. Whether Wiranto fits the bill is questionable, while the popularity of the Democratic Party would suggest that Susilo is perceived as possessing such qualities.

The next two months will see a crucial contest in the build-up to the presidential election. On one side will be cautious but progressive reform offered by Susilo. On the other will be Golkar and the forces of status quo trying to pander to the mistaken view that Indonesians crave a return to the days of stability under an authoritarian leadership. Meanwhile, Megawati's candidacy will continue to fade.

However, the political map is fundamentally different from 1999 thanks to the involvement of 147 million voters in the ultimate decision. Popular appeal and public trust now drive the process, and money politics applied at party conventions is impossible. Consequently, it is misleading to describe this contest as simply a "battle of the generals".

One general has won the nomination by securing 7 percent of the electorate's votes, while the other has been selected by several hundred party members. As long as Susilo continues to articulate the values that he holds -- of peace, justice, democracy and prosperity -- the Indonesian people are likely to reaffirm their faith in reform and democratic progress.

Such an outcome, if it does come to pass, would demonstrate the progress that has been made in Indonesia over the past seven years. It would also help to consolidate the idea of democracy in the minds of ordinary Indonesians as an effective way of choosing -- and discarding -- political leaders, depending on their performance. This outcome is far from the return to Soehartoism predicted by many observers. The choice is not between two Soeharto-era generals, but between democratic progress and the final demise of reform.

Many observers also worry that such a scenario would create a weak government, where legislation was continually hampered by an obstreperous House of Representatives (DPR) dominated by Golkar. This is a valid concern, but the hope must be that, as president, Susilo would be able to find a compromise in a way that eluded some of his less conciliatory predecessors.

However, if the DPR were to be used as a vehicle for obstructing and destabilizing the government, the free press and civil society in highlighting this negative strategy would alert the people that democracy was being undermined. They would be encouraged to rise up and punish any political party brazen enough to obstruct policy changes put forward by a president with a clear mandate.

The great leap forward that is being made in Indonesian political culture means that all players should be forced to take into account how their behavior will be perceived by voters. Democracy, for all its imperfections, is starting to work in the Indonesian context: Irresponsible behavior will neither be forgotten, nor forgiven.

The writer is an associate at the Freedom Institute, a political think tank in Jakarta. The views expressed are personal.