Political parties instrumental for democracy: Ichlasul

Political observer Ichlasul Amal of Gadjah Mada University (UGM) was one of the country's prominent figures during the reform movement in 1998 while he was still rector of the oldest university in the country.

Ichlasul believes that Indonesia has all the requirements to survive the so-called transitional period and realize the reform agenda. He shares his views on the reform issue with The Jakarta Post's Sri Wahyuni. The following is an excerpt from the interview:

Question: How do you see the last five years of the country's reform era in general? Has it succeeded or has it failed?

Answer: There were basically two different groups of students at that time. The first were those with a short-term vision of forcing Pak Harto (President Soeharto) to step down from the presidency in a bid to rid the country of the authoritarian system. The second group consisted of those who wanted to change everything, not just Pak Harto's regime.

I myself at that time did not show them exactly what to do or what vision to follow. However, I did remind all the reform elements to promote pluralism and to refrain from violence.

From this (pluralism) particular point of view, I think there has been some relatively good development, although pluralism has often created obstacles for an economic recovery and slowed down the process of recovery.

In terms of process, the economic recovery has in fact provided certainty in the sense that government intervention is not as heavy as it was in the past. The public plays a more significant role. In the economy, however, it is always big capital that calls the shots. Pluralism in the economy is basically capitalism. Having a lot of capital is the determining factor and this in turn influences politics.

In politics, pluralism means that people take part in the decision-making process. However, as the economy tends to be capitalist, it causes distortions in politics. As you may have also noticed, numerous cases of corruption and money politics have marred both the House of Representatives and the regional legislative councils (DPRD). It's a consequence of economic intervention in politics. Further investigation into these cases would only reveal that economic sponsors were behind them.

Q: What further impact could an economic intervention have on politics?

A: Dissatisfaction is very high, even though many infrastructures are quite satisfactory. Up to a certain level, the House and regional legislatures perform well and reflect the people's interests. However, their attitudes (corruption and money politics) have impacted negatively on the representation system. These corrupt legislators have caused people to believe that the reform era has not only brought freedom but also allowed certain political groups to take advantage (of the transitional period) to further their personal interests.

Q: Can we consider it a failure?

A: No, we can't. We are in a transition. We cannot expect it (the problem) to be solved overnight, especially since we are facing serious economic problems. The crisis is so deeply rooted that people have to deal with two fronts at the same time: the economic front and the political front. This of course affects political values because political participation will also be seen as a chance to get jobs.

Professionalism in politics is important. However, people tend to link professionalism with big salaries only.

Q: How much time do you think will be needed for the transition?

A: As a matter of fact, there are only a few countries that have succeeded in getting through the transitional period. South Korea is one of them, especially because of its success in the industrialization process. I feel certain that Indonesia will be successful, but I'm not sure when. As you may have noticed, antiauthoritarian values have been growing quite strongly in the community.

However, if the civilian-led political life fails to create promising conditions over a certain period of time, the chance (for success) may change. If this is the case, I'm afraid we will experience what happened in Pakistan. The military there did not launch a coup but was invited to enter (the political life). People will see a military-led political life as an alternative because a civilian one is not promising and fails to get rid of violence. It even increases cases of money politics and corruption.

Q: Do you think we will experience the same thing that happened to Pakistan?

A: Of course, it would not be that easy. At least a generation of students is still traumatic about the military-led political life and the military does understand this. The military elite, too, can no longer use their historical role in the struggle for independence and the establishment of Indonesia to justify their involvement in politics.

I'm not certain the military will in the near future be able to consolidate and take over the process from civilians. But, of course, the military will be able to make a comeback if the people or a group of people ask them to do so. This will provide them with a new legitimacy.

Q: What should the government do to get the country out safely from the transition period?

A: It has to continuously fight corruption, collusion and nepotism. It has to be able to create institutions that are capable of issuing transparent decisions. This is very important. Transparency doesn't yet exist at present, although all decisions have been made through the legislative bodies. In fact, the legislatures themselves are not transparent.

Q: How do you observe the other group of students that wanted to make a complete change to the country's political life? How will they see the reform process at present?

A: Their main targets are actually the military and those with links to the New Order regime. They want to get rid of them and replace them with a new generation. They don't believe in reconciliation. Their slogan is revolution.

The problem is, they do not have an idea of what political instruments would best suit their goals. Political parties are in fact the instruments of democracy. However, if they were to choose political parties as their instruments, it would be impossible for them to completely cut the link from the past.

These particular groups of students exist at present as parts of pluralism. They emerge as groups that have extreme views. They will always express dissatisfaction over, for example, the long transition period and the involvement of the past political elite in today's reform process. For them, today's reform agenda is a complete failure and is quite far from their expectations. They view the current situation as just a continuation of the past.