Political parties instrumental for democracy: Ichlasul
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.