Stagnancy looms over political reform process

Stagnancy looms over political reform process

The government seems to have lost its momentum in introducing
policies for political reform, including efforts to hold a
general election in the near future. Arief Budiman, an Indonesian
professor at the University of Melbourne's Department of Language
Studies, looks into reasons for the slow progress.

Question: Why has political reform been so slow to develop?

Arief: Various factors have come into play, including efforts
from the counter-reform camp to obscure the real meaning of
reform sought by university students and other proreform
activists. Proreform leaders have not been coordinating their
efforts and there has been an absence of priorities in the reform
agenda, causing a loss of focus in the reform process.

Some government officials are apparently trying to obscure the
meaning of "total reform" proposed by university students (who
toppled Soeharto on May 21). The students actually wanted both
Soeharto and then vice president B.J. Habibie to step down as
well as other officials involved in corrupt, collusive and
nepotistic practices. They wanted new leaders with high
credibility.

The current government, which is indeed against political
reform, has responded by introducing "constitutional reform",
meaning that Soeharto must be replaced by his vice president and
that any political changes must be made through the People's
Consultative Assembly (MPR) and be based on existing regulations
-- though the reform of these regulations were a main target of
the students. This means the government is actually resisting the
reform process in the name of reform. This government stance has
received support since it frequently argues that unconstitutional
reform would merely cause chaos.

A group of reformists has introduced a "peaceful reform"
concept, in which reform should be carried out peacefully and
orderly but not necessarily constitutionally.

Proreform leaders seem to be too busy with their own interests
at present to think of consolidating with other reform-minded
groups. They have not unified to take a common stance on reform.

This has caused the reform process to come to a standstill.
Reform activists are crying out reform proposals, while the
Habibie government doles out promises to satisfy a complaining
public and the Armed Forces is keeping silent without proposing
anything. As a result, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has
been doubting whether it should disburse its next tranche of aid
to help Indonesia's ailing economy.

Q: What may come as a result of the lack of progress?

A: Since the country is facing a leadership crisis, the economy
will continue to deteriorate. I suggest a coalition be formed to
lead the nation. One possible coalition could be between ABRI and
Habibie, while another could be between ABRI and proreform
leaders.

ABRI itself is now the only strong element of Indonesian
society but it would not be able to lead the country alone since
it has yet to forward a vision for reform.

If Habibie succeeds in obtaining the next tranche of IMF aid,
he will have a good chance to form a coalition with ABRI. But
such a coalition would find it difficult to attract investment,
particularly from Chinese-Indonesians because Habibie would most
likely depend on the Association of Indonesian Moslem
Intellectuals (ICMI) as his power base. ICMI is known to be
sectarian, and has not been sympathetic to the ethnic Chinese or
to Christians.

A coalition between the military and reformist figures,
including economists like Emil Salim and Kwik Kian Gie, as well
as the popular Moslem leaders of Muhammadiyah and Nahdlatul
Ulama, would be more promising to overcome the country's
problems.

Q: Then, what is the fate of the country's reform programs?

A: The Habibie government, which is now under pressure, might
carry them out. The problem for Habibie is that because he is not
popular, he might be edged out as soon as the political system
becomes more democratized.

Proreform students actually have a vision that the reform
process could be accelerated if their leaders unite and
coordinate a show of force, demanding Habibie step down and
assign a presidium, comprising military personnel, economists and
grassroots leaders, to coordinate the reform programs.

Q: Will Indonesians become polarized from the establishment of
new political parties?

A: They will most likely divide into groups based on religion,
nationalism and the interests of the middle class and lower-
income groups.

Indonesians have been living under an oppressive government
for more than 30 years. They will now have to learn how to live
in a democracy. We should go ahead and allow a lot of new parties
to emerge. Some will survive and others will not through fair
political competition and they will learn to settle disputes
through dialog. So, a capability to manage conflict will be very
important for our new leaders.

My concern, however, is whether the new parties established by
proreform leaders will be able to compete with Golkar, which is
no longer popular but is still a strong political machine.

Q: What kind of government do you expect will lead the country
after the reform process?

A: If the economy improves, the new government will be more
democratic than the New Order regime. The president will not act
like a king who is not to be criticized like when Soeharto was in
power. The cabinet will represent all political forces in
society. If Kwik Kian Gie has a senior governmental position,
Chinese-Indonesians now staying overseas would most likely return
and reinvest their money in Indonesia. (riz)