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.