RI needs major resuscitation
RI needs major resuscitation
By Donna K. Woodward
MEDAN, North Sumatra (JP): Gradual reform is going nowhere.
Discontent is escalating. The stage is set for revolution.
Governments do not like the "R" word. They fear it.
Understanding the perils, even ardent reform-minded critics of
the status quo now caution against revolution as a way out of
crisis.
Is revolution an unalloyed evil? Should revolutionary
stirrings be repressed? Consider the American Revolution:
America's leaders would not disavow that as a negative event.
Russians may now reject totalitarian Communism, but few would
regret their great-grandparents' revolution against the
oppressive Russian aristocracy.
There are revolutions that begin as revolts against unjust
regimes but fail to achieve humanitarian objectives; they
themselves become repressive, as in Cuba's case. Nevertheless,
against state-enabled injustice, revolution may be the only
escape.
When politicians talk about change, they advise that change
should be evolutionary. Regardless of how odious the status quo
might be for those subject to it, authorities warn against
sudden, major transitions.
They contend that revolutions violate public order and human
rights. They confuse revolution with war and the violence and
fanaticism that typically accompany revolutions-but, it needs
saying, do not define them.
Revolution is less about violence than about changes in
political and economic relationships. This, not violence, might
be what scares the power elites the most about revolution.
Witness the daily violence that is tolerated by the government
now.)
At the risk of sounding subversive, leaders must begin to say
it: Indonesia needs a revolution. Not a revolution of arms, but
a fundamental transformation, beginning now, in all systems of
governance.
In place of true reform, politicians have offered half-
measures of change that leave a landscape of lawlessness, despair
and prolonged suffering. Indonesia urgently needs to convert the
current system into one that ensures justice and the fruits of
liberty for everyone.
How will this conversion be brought about? By leaders
energized by a revolutionary spirit of reform. In a recent
interview with this newspaper young leader of People's Democratic
Party Budiman Sudjatmiko pleaded that a new generation be given
their chance to lead.
But where are the leaders who will be different from those now
in authority? Who are the men and women who will not descend
into the usual slimy ways of doing business when they ascend to
positions of power? We look for the signs of revolutionary
leadership.
Fortunately we have examples of it in Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson
Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi, and others closer to home. What these
leaders have in common is a willingness to make long-term
sacrifices of personal comfort, wealth and conventional success,
to accomplish goals that will bring concrete benefits to their
communities.
Their lifestyles witness the values they profess. Their
ambition is for service, not for the trappings of status and
possessions. Few conventional politicians are made in this
revolutionary mold.
Can legislature members hold a candle to Nelson Mandela, 27
years imprisoned rather than compromise his reformer's integrity?
The political field is littered with self-promoting demagogues
who manipulate authentic patriotism and religious zeal and fan
them into fanaticism.
To second Budiman: It's time for Indonesia's revolutionary
spirits to seize the initiative.
Is revolutionary change possible? Is it possible to change a
community's culture within a generation, from one that tolerates
corruption to one that demands transparency and reform? Malcolm
X once challenged those who said that attitudes could not be
changed quickly, with the following example.
He reminded us that during World War II the United States
government began a propaganda campaign to convince Americans that
Germans were our enemies and America's wartime allies, the
Russians, were our friends.
Then after the war the U.S. government set out on a second
campaign to reverse attitudes; now Germans (our partners in post-
war Europe) were our allies and Russians (our Cold War
antagonists) were not to be trusted. In the space of a dozen
years the nation twice went through profound changes in feelings,
beliefs, and ways of behaving.
Malcolm X used this example to refute those who thought that
attitudes could not be changed within a generation. His lesson
may have applications vis-a-vis reform and corruption. It may
not be as impossible as the political elite would have us believe
to introduce revolutionary reform measures.
Before the 1999 elections some said that Indonesians were not
ready for democracy. But people were. Some said that Indonesians
were not ready for reform; people were, as the popular response
to the 1998 change of government proved.
Now reform is dying a slow death and needs emergency
resuscitation. Some will say that Indonesians aren't ready for
revolutionary reform measures. They surely are, if it will lead
to greater prosperity and justice. They are if authority figures
encourage it, first of all by example.
Those who resist major reforms are the small but powerful
minority who benefit so disproportionately under the status quo.
They should look out their windows and see the violence and
poverty and suffering in the streets.
To them, gradual reform may no longer be an option. The
choice may be serious governance reform on the one hand and
violent anarchy on the other. If there is doubt about this, Aceh
and West Papua are legacies of the government's failure to
implement reforms in time.
Sometimes only leaders who offer revolutionary alternatives to
widespread injustice can defuse mass violence. American president
John F. Kennedy once said, "He who does not make peaceful change
possible makes violent change inevitable."
Revolutionary change might be not Indonesia's ruin, but it's
only hope.
The writer, an attorney and former American diplomat at the U.S.
Consulate General in Medan, is president director of PT Far
Horizons management consultancy.