Power politics 2003

Power politics 2003

Chusnul Mar'iyah

The years that followed the epochal students, civil society and
political victory in 1998 were a lonely time for realists in
Indonesia. The 1999 election, for instance, had a bad impact on
Indonesian politics. The absence of effective coalitions in the
building process of politics indirectly caused the fall of then
president Soeharto. Ever since then, we have experienced several
successions in national leadership, from Soeharto to B.J. Habibie
and from Abdurrahman Wahid to Megawati Soekarnoputri.

Many people believe that the shifts took place in the name of
democracy. Meanwhile, in the legislative body, members of the
House of Representatives and provincial and regional legislators
came to power through democracy. The result of the 1999 election
was considered the most democratic in our political history,
which, unfortunately, has been used to legitimize all political
processes that are sometimes undemocratic.

The practice of corruption and gross human rights violations
inherited from the New Order continues. Regional autonomy has,
for example, decentralized the act of corruption not only in the
executive but also in the legislative and judicial bodies,
although at a regional level. As a matter of fact, we have not
yet had a more democratic succession of presidents or a selection
of legislators.

Does democracy take place only when we choose the members of
the legislature? Or is participatory democracy a long-lasting
process?

How was the political path like after 1998's succession,
especially for the 2004 elections?

In a broader scope of Indonesian politics, political violence
occurs both domestically and internationally. To what extent does
global politics affect the democratization process in Indonesia?
What has been the impact of the Sept. 11 tragedy and Oct. 7
Afghanistan bombing and the moving of international issues from
the permanent war against terrorism to war in Iraq on the
democratization process in Indonesia? How can we differentiate
peace from war?

When President George W. Bush announced the air strikes
against Afghanistan, he said, "We are a peaceful nation".
Furthermore, British Prime Minister Tony Blair echoed him with:
"We are a peaceful people". (New York Times and USA Today, Oct.
8, 2001). These statements bring us to the next question; that
is, will the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq be able to overcome the
case of terrorism without searching for the root of the problem:
injustices at all levels of life, the economy, culture and social
issues as well as politics.

In my opinion, the victims in Afghanistan after Sept. 11
should be added to those casualties at the World Trade Center in
New York, the Pentagon and those in the Palestine. As an activist
who strives for peace and democracy in Indonesia, I believe that
the shifting of the international issue from democratization to
war is the hardest stumbling block for Indonesia. Take for
example the release of the draconian antiterrorism Perpu
(government regulation in lieu of law), which has gained a superb
response from western countries. The decision has in fact
disappointed prodemocracy activists here.

The violence stemming from a series of bombings were moments
that destroyed the democratization process at a domestic level.
This challenge of political security has worsened conditions in
the country.

This article will discuss how the process of democratization
over the past few years has been the basis for noting the
challenges of 2003, wherein the political condition shall become
more tense in the facet of the 2004 general election.

This topic will be divided into three parts. First, it will
review the conditions after 1998. Secondly, it will talk about
the challenge toward the preparation of the 2004 general
election. At the end of this article, I will note the domestic
contexts and the global impact on the democratization process in
Indonesian politics.

During the New Order, Indonesia held seven general elections.
The elections were an indicator and legitimated means of
democratic governance for three decades. Yet, the results of the
elections during the New Order were very predictable. A
democratic general election is done on a predictable basis with
an unpredictable result.

A democratic government should exclude the use of force,
including on all its adult citizens, to politically participate
-- the majority of women are usually excluded -- and grant civil
and political liberties.

In May 1998, I was in the midst of student movements at both
the Salemba and Depok campuses of the University of Indonesia and
the House of Representatives to press then president Soeharto to
step down. Then vice president B.J Habibie, who was appointed as
the succeeding president, brought up some changes, especially in
press freedom, and in the following year, holding free and fair
elections. However, the successes had to be followed by some
violence. The newly elected democracy led immediately to anarchy.
The political changeover from Soeharto to Habibie was a result of
violent movements. The election of Wahid as president was not
able to stop the chain of violence in Ambon, North Maluku, West
Kalimantan, Central Kalimantan and Aceh.

The succession from former president Wahid to Megawati took
place in 2001 without any violence. The people had pinned their
hopes on Megawati's leadership. She was expected to decisively
lead this country out of an economic crisis and to continue the
process of democratization as mandated in the political movement
in 1998.

Nevertheless, her efforts to undertake the agenda were not
very smooth due to the amendment of the 1945 Constitution. And
then the Sept. 11 tragedy took place. The tragedy, which
triggered the U.S. to declare war against terrorism, obviously
threatened the political wave of democracy building in Indonesia.
The government was forced to issue antiterrorism statements. It
was pathetic that Indonesia had no policy to take a risk to save
this country from the suspicion that it was a terrorist camp.
After the annual session of the People's Consultative Assembly
(MPR) in 2002, President Megawati had the opportunity to lead
this country in confidence, but then came the Oct. 12 Bali
blasts. This has torn apart our credentials as a nation and as a
country. Two questions were raised in response to the Bali
bombing, i.e.: Why has the chain of violence continued to happen
after Soeharto's era? And why Bali?

To my understanding, the bombings cannot be as simple as a
vendetta against Australians, Britons and Americans. It is not
against people. It is against humanity and it is more about
opposition to Indonesia as a nation, as a country. Our
credentials as a nation and as a country have been at stake since
then. We look like a failed state. Who benefited from the Bali
blasts? That question has often bewildered me. Who are the
perpetrators behind this tragedy?

Various media have stated that they were linked to al-Qaeda or
Jama'ah Islamiah, or the Indonesian Military or they were
terrorists from foreign countries. Do not let these suspicions be
based on the temporary political interests of the incumbent
elite. We have got to be patient and wait for the work of the
police in revealing the perpetrators of the Bali blasts.

The magnitude of the blasts' impact has been tremendous. The
political elite in the government of Indonesia is concerned with
short-term interests for the next 2004 election. The leaders of
Muslim groups, such as Abu Bakar Ba'asyir, should have been
questioned far before the Bali blasts. At the same time, we have
lost our confidence in the government, including the police.
Restoring the police's credentials is very important.

It seems that the government of Indonesia is not well-equipped
in handling tragedies in the middle of an economic crisis and
national disintegration, while it struggles with democratization
and freedom of the press. It has been very difficult.

Freedom of the press is the key to the democratization process
and we have to get through that process. We have to address the
real cause of the problems: the economic injustices, the human
rights injustices, lack of credibility in the court system and so
on.

Civil society condemned the bombings and demanded an
independent fact-finding mission. We agreed to foreign countries
helping in the investigations. We wanted to know who did it. We
cannot just go back to business as usual.

Civil society should continue to control the implementation of
the antiterrorism regulation in lieu of law. The politicians'
support for it has become a negative signal in the process of
democratization In Indonesia. Another negative indication is the
State Intelligence Coordinating Board's (Bakin) policy to form
representative offices in provinces all over Indonesia. This
policy demonstrates the centralization that will deteriorate the
democratization in Indonesia.

It is urgent that the government issue the law on intelligence
in Indonesia prior to the 2004 general election. The National
Intelligence Agency (BIN) policy has put civil and political
liberties under lock and key. Was the establishment of the board
three months ago meant to prepare a victory in the 2004 general
election? Or was it established just to draw funds from other
countries?

I agree that whoever was involved in the Bali blasts needs to
be brought to justice.

The police can question any suspects, but they cannot let the
legal process be spoiled by certain politicians or political
groups concerned with short-term interests to win the next
elections.

Discussions on the chain of bombings and other acts of
violence are necessary for preparing the 2004 election, which --
I believe -- is a venue for resolving the continuing conflicts
without violence.

The elections will be an arena for resolving power politics to
create nonviolent democratization and not the other way around.
We have to believe that the way to minimize violent conflicts in
Indonesia is by placing a priority on the construction of a more
democratic and prosperous nation. It is the political elite who
are responsible for bringing peace to the country. We need to
build a good informal arrangement between civil society,
politicians and the business community for leading our nation out
of the crisis.