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.