State terrorism in vogue again

The raid on an international labor conference last week indicates that the police have again employed state terrorism, says Let. Gen. (ret.) Hasnan Habib.

Question: Did the National Police apply the New Order's repressive methods when they raided and detained participants of the Asia-Pacific conference in Sawangan near Jakarta on Friday?

Hasnan: The officers who raided the conference were even ruder than the New Order authorities, because they treated the participants, including 30 foreigners, like common criminals. Their excuse that the raid was part of their measures to strengthen security ahead of the special session of the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) was absurd and unrealistic. The participants had no intention of disrupting the special session.

Q: Was the attack on conference participants by the Angkatan Muda Ka'bah (a youth group affiliated to the United Development Party or PPP) also an imitation of the tyrannical practices common in the New Order government?

Sure. That was an intimidation that can be called state terrorism, under which the authorities, using their own force or a third party, tried to repress people to comply with their wishes.

H: How could the police make such a mistake? Is it because they did not know the rules or because they were practicing politics?

Some of them still have the New Order mentality. Referring to the social and political stability for 32 years under the New Order government, some groups of officials still consider that repression is absolutely right and is the best way to scare people from trying to oppose the authorities.

Furthermore ... the police, as well as the Indonesian Military (TNI), are still involved in actual politics, as proven by their representation in the House of Representatives (DPR) and the MPR, and they are reluctant to be dragged into President Abdurrahman "Gus Dur" Wahid's personal conflict with the DPR.

Q: Does the incident indicate the possible return of the New Order government, in terms of its people or its way of governing the country, to power again?

H: Even though some groups of people say that political conditions under Soeharto's New Order government were far better, I don't think it's possible for the New Order to return to power.

During the Soeharto era, conditions were extraordinarily stable and people could predict what might happen in the future. Conditions now are vulnerable and everything is unpredictable, but we can never turn the clock back.

We have made changes toward democratization, such as in the freedom of expression, of speech and of assembly. The international community, particularly countries assisting us to recover from the economic crisis, want us to continue the process toward democracy.

If New Order elements return to power, we will return to authoritarianism. That is impossible because the power of the TNI is now very limited and the people, particularly the youth, do not want the military to return to power.

Q: But New Order elements in the DPR and within the bureaucracy are still very strong...

H: We can say that New Order elements at the House include representatives of the Golkar Party, the PPP and the Indonesian Democratic Party, as well as some Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle officials but ... they have changed their attitude and do not want the return of the authoritarian regime. Golkar is not as strong as it used to be, particularly after the TNI withdrew its membership (from the party).

Q: Gus Dur's way of governing the country sometimes seems to be like the style of the New Order regime. Is it because he has been trapped by political circumstances?

H: Gus Dur is actually more authoritarian than the leader of the New Order government. It's ironical that Gus Dur, the cofounder of the (private) Forum for Democracy which struggled hard for the establishment of democracy in Indonesia, is undemocratic. When he was elected president in 1999, the local and international community expected that Indonesia, under his leadership, would become the world's third largest democratic country.

But, Gus Dur apparently does not know how to apply the principles of democracy. He makes decisions by himself, without consulting his aides in the Cabinet or DPR when necessary.

Q: Is that what has caused political conflict between Gus Dur and the House?

H: Partly, yes. House members have made mistakes. Political euphoria has made them think that they can solve any state problems and that all parties, including the President, have to abide by their whims. For example, the Constitution states that the President is the head of the military but in contradiction he needs approval from the House if he wants to appoint a commander in chief of the TNI. (Rikza Abdullah)