Reformist leaders fight authoritarianism

Reformist leaders fight authoritarianism

Frans H. Winarta, Jakarta

We are now in the lead-in to the next phase of the 2004
electoral process: namely, the first round of elections for the
presidency and vice presidency two months from now. With the
deadline fast approaching for registration of presidential and
vice-presidential candidates at the General Elections Commission
(KPU), the political parties are busy searching for candidates
with the potential to win on July 5.

The search for a vice-presidential candidate is particularly
important because our current multiparty system means that it is
not possible for a single party to win 50 percent or more of the
vote. Given the condition that it is necessary for a candidate to
obtain more than 50 percent of the national vote and at least 20
percent of the vote in at least half the provinces in Indonesia
(Article 66, Law No. 23/2003 on elections), coalition-making
cannot be avoided as a strategy for success.

Ironically, the recently concluded, peaceful, legislative
elections demonstrated the consolidation of Indonesia's emerging
democracy; yet, at the same time, the system has resulted in the
emergence of two former military figures. In a development that
would have been almost impossible to predict a year ago, Susilo
Bambang Yudhoyono and Wiranto have emerged as the two leading
contenders for the presidency.

However, since one emerged as leader of a party that is likely
to finish only fifth in the legislative elections and the other
through a congress held after the general election, in which his
party is likely to score its lowest vote in history (albeit as
winner), the real popularity of these two men has yet to be
tested.

To what extent voters in 70,000 villages scattered through
Indonesia's vast archipelago actually know them has yet to be
proven. And the extent of their support among urban civilian
communities who still remember the excesses of military
domination during the Soeharto regime will also be interesting to
observe. Have the people of Indonesia already forgotten the dark
history of human rights abuses suffered at the hands of a brutal
regime for 32 years?

In the words of Plato, authoritarian government is effective
because it can muzzle its critics, create artificial stability
and even significant economic growth (although far from evenly
shared). Take the government of Chun Do Hwan of South Korea as an
example, or even Soeharto's Indonesia, which was relatively
stable and safe and enjoyed around 7 percent growth per year and
a significant flow of foreign investment. However, democratic
development, respect for human rights and the rule of law were
almost completely ignored.

By ignoring these latter aspects of development, Indonesia
paid a high price. From this military regime, we inherited an
economic crisis, a crisis in leadership, violent societal
conflict, crimes against humanity (for which we have been held
responsible in East Timor), lack of preparedness of civilian
leaders, legal disarray, an economy in tatters and a banking
system open to massive abuse -- among other things.

The extent to which these former military candidates are able
to change the image from what was experienced from the military
during the Soeharto regime is something that we will wait to
observe at the July 5 polls. The new president's commitment to
democracy, human rights and the rule of law will be tested
throughout the five-year term.

It must be admitted that democracy requires patience,
sacrifice and often results in government that is not so
effective in producing short term results. But that is the price
that must be paid to create a government and community that
guarantees and protects human rights, a free press, freedom of
expression, just law enforcement, protection of minority rights
and free and fair elections. Impatience, and the desire for fast
results, could result in a return to authoritarian rule.

The country's fate will be in the hands of the election
winner. It is for this reason that our reformist leaders must be
skillful in using this momentum to remind the people of the
ramifications of a return to military power, the dwifungsi
paradigm and the old ways of running the country. Reform leaders
must unite to prevent a return to repressive government that
caused such great suffering, the effects of which are still felt
to the present day.

It is not fair to compare the effectiveness of the New Order
regime with the governments that followed. The latter emerged out
of a 32-year authoritarian political climate that systematically
stifled the emergence of new leaders. New civilian community
leaders were suddenly thrust onto the political stage with the
fall of Soeharto in 1998.

The lack of development of leadership within political parties
during the New Order regime meant that Indonesia has found it
difficult to produce civilian leaders who are seasoned and tough
enough to tackle the nation's problems. Political careers were
not allowed to be nurtured as they were in developed countries.

Before becoming British prime minister, Tony Blair had to join
a Labor Party that had spent 18 years in opposition before he
could seize the nation's highest political office through a
general election in 1997. Politicians in developed countries,
like Tony Blair, must groom themselves and be tested through open
debate in parliament, policy deliberations, the rough and tumble
of political life, a rigid system of meritocracy and clear
platforms that need to be sold to one's party as well as to the
electorate.

Indonesia has never really had such a system. It should come
as no surprise, therefore, if civilian politicians sometimes seem
to lack toughness, have no long-term vision for the country's
future and are poor in crisis and conflict management. This
situation can only improve if our leaders unite for the future of
the country, forget about short-term personal gain and focus on
the broad picture of how to strengthen our nascent democracy.
They need to be aware of the dangers of falling back into the
trap of authoritarianism with its false promise of short-term
stability.

Reconciliation between reform leaders like Megawati
Soekarnoputri and Abdurrahman "Gus Dur" Wahid is needed so that
Indonesia does not slip back into militarism. This can still
happen because politics is the art of the possible. It should be
remembered that one of the key points of the reform agenda was
the eradication of the military's sociopolitical role.

Although Wiranto and Susilo are now retired generals, the
military command structure that sits uncomfortably with democracy
is difficult to eradicate from their way of thinking. It may be
different in developed democracies where retired military
personnel entering politics are fully acquainted with democratic
processes in their everyday lives and are unlikely to impose
military-type solutions to national problems.

The recent statement of Indonesian Military (TNI) Commander
Gen. Endriartono Sutarto, in which he refused to accept a vice
presidential nomination from any political party, was the right
move and worthy of a professional soldier who safeguards civilian
supremacy and the neutrality of the armed forces in domestic
politics.

The Sukarno name that she wears is Megawati's principal
capital for reelection. For the last five years, her photo has
been displayed across the villages of the nation as Indonesian
Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) leader, vice president and
then president, to make her an easily recognizable figure for
tens of millions of farmers, fishermen, laborers and small
traders. Gus Dur is also sufficiently close to the people such
that these two figures, were they to unite, would become a
formidable and popular force as compared with the other
candidates.

Is it possible for them to unite again, given their troubled
history? Reconciliation between the two could prevent the
reemergence of old forces that may jeopardize Indonesia's
democratic development. If they can forget their past differences
and unite for the greater good, they would truly represent a
force to be reckoned with.

The writer is Advocate and Member of IBA Human Rights
Institute Advisory Board.