Power politics to loom in the future

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.