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)