RI democracy still elusive four months on

By Dewi Anggraeni

MELBOURNE (JP): Over four months after Indonesia embarked on a rocky journey toward a democratic and civil society, Indonesians and Indonesia watchers are still wondering and debating whether the nation is still on track.

They are fully aware, and in many ways apprehensive, of the enormity and the complexity of the tasks ahead.

After 32 years of the firm control and suppression methods of the New Order government, is there anything remaining to create a democratic culture necessary to drive patrimonialism and a personality-driven system from the new government?

The "Rethinking Indonesia" conference, held in Melbourne from March 4 to 5, organized by the universities of Melbourne, Monash, Deakin, LaTrobe, Swinburne and Victoria, discussed this and a number of other issues. Sponsors were Radio Australia, The Indonesia Forum, The Jakarta Post and Kompas daily.

Guarded optimism was expressed by many of the speakers and participants.

Faisal Basri of the National Mandate Party (PAN), a party with an inclusive platform founded by Amien Rais, believes that Indonesia indeed has a new paradigm, which is driving the creation of a new nation and society.

Faisal also reminded the conference that despite widespread predictions to the contrary, the June 1999 elections were held without bloodshed. This is an indication that the population was to a significant degree, ready for a major change.

Political observer Wimar Witoelar, like many other participants, also looked ahead and saw reasons for hope. He does not believe, however, that democracy has necessarily crushed patrimonialism as yet, because of the complexity and multi- dimentionality of the society.

"The changes came about because of the public's desire to see a new society in Indonesia. The energy for political change comes from the politically conscious elements in society, such as students, intellectuals, academics and ultimately the middle class.

"These people will not tolerate patrimonialism. But then when this energy was transformed from street movements and pressure groups into parliamentary change, such as the People's Consultative Assembly set-up and the presidential election, the parties who took over from the reform movement came from institutions which are still quite patrimonial in their traditions," Wimar told The Jakarta Post on the sidelines of the conference.

He then gave as examples, the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan), which is still dependent on Megawati Soekarnoputri, the National Awakening Party (PKB) on Abdurrahman Wahid, or Gus Dur, and even PAN, a new party nonetheless, dependent on Amien Rais.

"So you have a formal political system, which is democratic in its desire, but has strong patrimonial roots; waiting in the wings you have the energy of the people.

"So we have to see if these two elements connect and then we will have a pass to the transition to a democratic culture, but if they do not, we may well see the political institutions stabilizing into yet another patrimonial system, thus aborting the democratic forces," Wimar said.

Gus Dur, the current president, it appears, is pivotal to the new paradigm mentioned by Faisal. Gus Dur may be an enigma to many people, but he also represents change for the better. As social and political reform cannot work smoothly without law reform, Gus Dur signaled a determination for law reform when he appointed Marzuki Darusman as attorney general.

And in the Supreme Court, Gus Dur has expressed his intention to appoint Benyamin Mangkoedilaga, known for his independence, to become the new chief justice. This is very significant, because as Tim Lindsey of the Asia Law Center at the University of Melbourne, put it, the Supreme Court has very broad influence, being a final court of appeal, thus determining every case. And riddled with corruption as it currently is, legal skills are irrelevant in the Supreme Court.

For that reason, Lindsey said, in its current state, judicial independence in the Supreme Court is not necessarily a good thing. This inevitably conjures up a picture of Marzuki, Gus Dur's first knight, fighting the formidable dragon in close quarters, seeing the massive resistance he must be facing.

Wimar agrees that Gus Dur is instrumental in the process of creating a democratic culture. "He is deeply committed to democracy, pluralism, antiviolence and all the aspects necessary for the process". he said.

However, other elements also come into play here. "Within his immediate circle, since he is such a remarkably strong figure, people tend to rely too much on him and look to him to give directions on every little thing. Simply because there are no alternatives," Wimar said.

While a whole session of the conference was dedicated to unraveling the enigma of Gus Dur, Wimar was more practical and pragmatic.

"Since we cannot change Gus Dur, we should take advantage of his presidency. He has indicated to us that he does not care what we do if we do it ourselves.

"He will not stand in the way of democratization and the empowerment of people; he even encourages society to articulate its own ideas for an economic policy. Gus Dur is needed in the primary issue of national survival," he said.

"He is a very good transitional president," he added. "For a permanent president, later on, we need someone with more managerial skills. I would say that Gus Dur has led us through the prerequisite of democracy, where we have survived the dangers of disintegration and regained our national pride. The rest of the way has to be completed by the people themselves, not just by Gus Dur."

Democracy, it seems, is still an ideal for Indonesia, but one that is becoming increasingly real and attainable.

The writer is a freelance journalist based in Melbourne.