Seeing through posturings of phony reformers

Seeing through posturings of phony reformers

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): Minister of Home Affairs Syarwan Hamid was
reported by Kompas daily as making three salient points in a
statement on Tuesday, May 26:

* The various new political parties that have been proclaimed
lately have no legal existence currently. For now, the government
recognizes only the three existing political organizations: the
Indonesian Development Party (PPP), dominant Golkar grouping and
Soerjadi-affiliated Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI).

* Later on, after the revised laws on political parties and
general elections have been approved and officially adopted, the
existence of these and other new political parties will be
officially recognized. By that time Megawati Soekarnoputri, the
former PDI leader toppled by Soeharto's government, can have her
own new political party, besides the PDI of Soerjadi.

* For the sake of the development of democratic culture, it is
best that Soerjadi and Megawati join forces, and the government
will not intervene again. "Intervention is a thing of the past."

I felt dismayed and dejected. This statement is, of course,
legally quite correct, but is it politically and psychologically
wise?

It should be noted in this regard that the three political
organizations now still enjoying legality are the very
organizations which collaborated with the Soeharto regime in
destroying democracy in our society.

These organizations are icons of the old New Order, and they
must still undergo total reform. Their legality was given by a
regime that is now defunct. Why is such a defunct legality
emphasized?

I am not quite sure whether Syarwan's remarks were an
institutional statement of the Ministry of Home Affairs or a
personal opinion.

Whatever the case, it reflects a belief in reform which is
skin-deep.

The suggestion that Megawati can form her own political party
alongside the PDI of Soerjadi is another reflection of the old
regime mentality.

It is derived from a firm belief that the Soerjadi-PDI is the
legal party, and Megawati's an illegal division. The entire
nation knows from the outcome of the 1996 general election which
one of these two parties really has roots in the society. Holding
firmly to the belief that the Soerjadi-PDI is the legal party and
the Megawati-PDI a clandestine organization is to defend a
position clearly from an antireform political attitude.

The third item in the statement is a very shameless one. It
says that for the sake of developing a democratic culture, it is
best that Soerjadi and Megawati (please note the order the names
were mentioned) join forces, and that the government will then
keep its hands off its affairs.

The final part -- intervention is a thing of the past -- is an
admission that it was the government which split the PDI into two
competing archrivals.

Most tellingly, I think, is that it is still fresh in the
public mind what Syarwan's role was as the then chief of social
and political affairs of the Armed Forces in this entire
political melodrama.

Has a person with such a political record the moral right to
speak on the development of democratic culture? Has such a person
the moral right to advise Megawati, a staunch defender of
democracy, to join forces with Soerjadi, a rapist of the
institution, for the sake of developing a democratic culture?

This particular story is undeniable evidence to me that
nowadays just about everybody in our society, even those who in
their heart still oppose reform, can claim to be a supporter of
reform.

It is only when we examine closely the language that a person
employs in talking about reform can we see the distinction
between those who are true believers and those who are still
captives of the old political and social mentality.

The latter category of people knows at best only the
vocabulary of reform.

I once listened to off-the-cuff remarks of the present chief
of staff for social and political affairs of the Armed Forces,
Lt. Gen. Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. He was talking about the Armed
Forces' concept concerning the purpose and design of our current
reform movement. After listening to one sentence, I immediately
believed that this was a general who really understands the
grammar of reform.

Sentence after sentence went by without any grammatical
mistake as far as reform is concerned. And after listening to the
entire episode which lasted only about three minutes, I am
convinced that this general also understands the idiom of reform.

In no single instance did he reveal any trace of the language
and logic of the old regime. When he mentioned that our current
reform is an avenue toward a new Indonesia, he demonstrated an
entirely new idiom which was never used before by anybody in the
establishment.

And when he talked about the link between our current reform
and reviving our national sense of humanity, he demonstrated
convincingly that reform is for him not merely a political
phenomenon, but that behind its political manifestations it is
basically a cultural renaissance of our nation.

Reform is a word that has become too popular too soon. Used by
people who were outside the process of its formation, it tends to
become an empty declaration.

When used by those who, because of their value commitments,
were inside the process of its becoming from the very beginning,
reform is a powerful instrument in charting the future of our
nation.

The writer is an observer of social and cultural affairs.