RI: Erratic country in transition

RI: Erratic country in transition

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): What has been happening in Indonesia recently,
and what is going to happen next?

This was the question put to me by my hosts at Simon Fraser
University in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Why did they ask this question?

Because Simon Fraser University has been involved in the
development of universities in Eastern Indonesia for 10 years,
and would like to continue this work.

For this purpose it is vital that they know what has really
been happening in the country. They have to defend their position
vis-a-vis Indonesia as a whole against criticism from groups both
within the university and groups within the public in general.

And they have problems in comprehending the chain of events
that have been occurring in the country. In their view, all the
events that have happened in Indonesia since the beginning of the
political reformation era in May 1998 (reformasi), look erratic
and full of contradictions.

On the one hand they think they have witnessed signs of a
democratization process, but on the other hand they also have the
impression that the new government and the political institutions
in the country are still behaving in a nondemocratic way. In
addition, they do not see any signs that the country has the
capability of solving its fundamental problems.

They have been especially bothered by the apparent inability
of the government to stop the violence that has been going on in
Aceh and Ambon, and also by the powerlessness of the new
government in tackling corruption, collusion and cronyism.

Still another reason for their skeptical attitude toward
Indonesia is what they see as the inability of the civilian
government in reigning in the military.

Suddenly, it dawned on me that it would be difficult to find a
framework for my presentation that could reduce their pessimistic
view and restore their confidence in our country.

Painting a rosy picture of Indonesia was out of the question;
it would amount to a flat lie. As I saw it at the time, my
"mission" was to convince my audience that there was still hope
for the country; that there was still a future for Indonesia,
both as country and as a nation.

How to tell this Canadian audience that we are determined to
defend our territorial and political integrity without resorting
to violence? How to convey the truth without damaging still
further the reputation of my country?

My problem was aggravated by the fact that most of my audience
had updated knowledge about the country's various problems. They
knew almost everything about what was going on in the country.

In addition, I was facing an audience that was quite
heterogeneous: professors, graduate students, businesspeople,
journalists and ordinary Canadians who know practically nothing
about Indonesia, except that it was ruled by a despot named
Soeharto for a very long time.

There were Indonesians who had been living in Canada for more
than 30 years, and had become either Canadian citizens or
permanent residents of the country. They showed genuine concern
for the future of their old country. But there were also Canadian
and foreign students belonging to the East Timor Alert group, who
showed a very skeptical and cynical attitude regarding anything
Indonesian.

After initial consultations with my host, I decided to deliver
my presentation at the level of political culture, by stressing
the cultural currents that underlie the main political events.

I started by saying that basically the country has made an
irreversible jump toward democracy. This could be testified by
six political events that took place between May 21, 1998 and
Oct. 26, 1999.

These were; (1) the resignation of president Soeharto and the
appointment of B.J. Habibie as the third president of the
country; (2) the formation of the National Election Commission;
(3) the implementation of the general election on June 7, 1999;
(4) the formation of the new House of Representatives and the
People's Consultative Assembly; (5) the election of a new
president and vice president; and (6) the formation of a new
Cabinet.

Each one of these six events is a testimony that democracy has
begun to take root in the country. But I also added that each of
these six political events were flawed by some fundamental
shortcomings.

The resignation of president Soeharto and the appointment of
Habibie as his successor were legally defective. The People's
Consultative Assembly at the time was completely sidestepped in
the process. This was a violation of the 1945 Constitution. While
the election of the new president and vice president was marred
by political manipulations and money politics.

These shortcomings notwithstanding, it cannot be denied that
the country is now definitely much more democratic than it was
from July 1959 to May 1998.

I hastily added that these shortcomings constituted the
sources of antidemocratic tendencies occurring now in the
country. The lack of sufficient understanding concerning the
basic principles of democracy, for instance, made it possible for
certain members of the political elite to form a temporary
alliance among political forces that were basically incompatible,
and create a political block to obstruct another political block
considered their common adversary.

It is these unprincipled political maneuverings that prevented
the same political elite from creating a government that can
function effectively.

So, what will happen next?

In the long run, I said, what would happen depends upon four
conditionalities. They are 1) whether or not we succeed in our
democracy building effort; 2) whether or not we succeed in our
effort to develop a culture of pluralism; 3) whether or not we
succeed in transforming our educational system; and 4) whether or
not we succeed in our search for a model of modernity that is
acceptable to all categories within Indonesian society.

If we succeed in these four endeavors, there is no doubt that
we will have a genuinely democratic country. But if we fail in
any of them, we will decline and become a chaotic country. To
know what will eventually happen in Indonesia, one must look at
signs of developments in these four aspects.

During the question and answer sessions, I faced a number of
tough questions that I felt I could not answer satisfactorily.

One professor, who had visited Indonesia several times, asked
why the Indonesian government does not improve the salaries of
government officials to curb corruption among high-ranking
officials.

He went further and said that corruption can be found
everywhere in this world, including Canada and the United States.
But in no other country in the world is corruption allowed to
blossom to such an extent that at the end it becomes impossible
to control. "What are you going to do about it? Would you just
accept the world's opinion that corruption has always been an
inherent part of your culture?"

This was really a painful question that caught me off balance.
Initially I did not know how to respond, but I realized that I
could not possibly leave the question unanswered. After some
mumbling, I said that in my view social ills like this could be
cured only by strengthening democracy. The building of democracy
will make it possible for us to redefine our collective value
system, and when this new value system is enforced within a
democratic social framework it will then be possible to prescribe
a code of ethical behavior for the bureaucracy.

There were still other tough questions regarding the present
situation in Indonesia. The important lesson I drew from the
questions raised during this session was that we are facing a
gigantic task of restoring our reputation as a nation. I became
aware that, in the view of Canadians, we must have looked very
erratic and very puzzling.

I asked myself, "Are we really that erratic and unprincipled
as a nation that even Canadians sympathetic to our cause fail to
understand that we are still in a transitional situation?"

How must I explain to foreign audience that as a pluralistic
nation living in a transitional period we are bound to make
mistakes?

But of course this cannot be used as an excuse for our present
shortcomings. The problem is, I think, that many of us,
particularly our political elite, do not have the slightest idea
where we are going out of this transitional journey.

It really is a pity and a lamentable fact that many among our
political elite do not think any farther than the next general
election.

Must we wait until political leaders from the next generation
take over the reins of control and guide the political behavior
of the nation? I hope not.

The writer is a social and cultural observer based in Jakarta.