Symptoms vs cause?

Symptoms vs cause?

The kind of reactions to the small but growing calls for
President Megawati Soekarnoputri and Vice President Hamzah Haz to
step down in the wake of the increases in utility prices, is a
classic example of people mistaking the symptoms for the cause of
the disease. Like poorly trained doctors, they are more likely to
prescribe medicines to treat the symptoms, but not to cure the
disease.

The government, as echoed by Coordinating Minister for
Political Affairs Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, viewed the demands
for the president and vice president to resign as
unconstitutional. He vowed harsh measures in response to anyone
trying to topple the current administration. Susilo also warned
political parties against piggy-backing on people who were
protesting the price hikes for their own political goals.

The Indonesian Military (TNI), which remains a powerful
institution in spite of its phased withdrawal from formal
politics, has also cautioned against any unconstitutional moves
to unseat the present leadership.

Chairman of the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) Amien
Rais, whose own National Mandate Party (PAN) is entertaining the
idea of replacing the current government, stated that the 1945
Constitution no longer included a provision for the MPR, the
highest state institution, to impeach the president following the
latest series of amendments in August. Megawati, we may recall,
became president after the MPR, under Amien, impeached then-
president Abdurrahman Wahid in July 2001 for incompetence.

Under the constitution, only the House of Representatives
(DPR) can impeach the president, but the move must be approved by
the Constitutional Court, which has not been established to this
day. So, both Megawati and Hamzah can take comfort in knowing
that their positions are, at least constitutionally, safe.

Others have also made very compelling arguments that the last
thing Indonesia needs is another change in government, whether
the process is constitutional or not. An impeachment process
would sow more instability and destroy what little confidence the
domestic and international public still have in the ability of
any government to manage the nation.

There are also fears that if there were to be a second
impeachment, there would then be a third, thus turning Indonesia
into a banana republic of the kind found in Latin America during
the '70s. We would be lucky if we even get to the fourth
impeachment, because in all likelihood, this nation would break
up before such a thing happens: Indonesia as we know it today
would no longer exist, replaced by smaller states instead.

If all these warnings have failed to stop the anti-government
protests -- the protests are growing louder by the day -- it is
because just about everyone has been looking at the demand for a
change in government from the wrong angle: Susilo is viewing the
demand from the perspective of his government's fate; Amien, of
constitutionality; the military, of a possible threat to
security; and outside observers, from the perspective of the
national destruction that an impeachment might inflict.

No one has yet bothered to look at the main reason the demands
for a change in government are growing louder. No one has taken
the trouble to ask the demonstrators, the students and the
workers who brave the scorching sun and the drenching rain, why
their initial protests opposing the price hikes has increasingly
turned into demands for a change in government.

As harsh as the latest round of simultaneous price hikes may
seem, this nation has gone through much worse in the past. The
increases, in themselves, would not have been enough to cause
such a public outrage. Coming after a series of controversial
decisions that have been deemed unfair and unjust, it is easy to
see why the protests against prices hikes have, in many cases
now, turned into outright protests against government. The
present state of the economy, with jobs being lost and no new
ones being created, has further fueled this public anger.

The street demonstrations that we have seen in many parts of
the country these last two weeks were expressions of a
discontented people. They reflect the disillusionment prevalent
among the people about the poor performance, or lack thereof, of
the government -- both the executive and legislative branches --
in defending and protecting their interests. They reflect a
nation that is feeling restless at the unfairness and injustices
that they find today under the present government.

How else can we explain the odd alliance between workers and
employers in some of the demonstrations, and the gathering of
workers, students and housewives in others? If these groups have
decided to take to the streets, this can only mean that the
current political mechanisms, including the means of political
communications in this country, have failed them.

How do we deal with this situation? Clearly, not by treating
the symptoms, but by curing the real disease; that is, by showing
greater wisdom and by creating policies that are fair and just,
not those that only benefit a single group of society.

The government can still salvage the situation because deep
down, most people in this country also agree that the last thing
they want or need is to go through another period of political
instability and economic crisis.

But the government better hurry before the disease turns
cancerous. If this happened, then we would definitely need a
major surgical operation to remove the cancer, and would suffer
the severe pain that comes with it, as with the subsequent
recovery period.