RI democracy still elusive four months on

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.