The choice between Megawati and Susilo

Peter Milne Jakarta

That there is little to choose between the two remaining presidential candidates is the argument expressed by Wimar Witoelar in a piece entitled Susilo, Megawati: Too close to call a winner, which appeared in The Jakarta Post earlier this week. In so arguing, Wimar touches on some important concerns, reminding us of the unfortunate reality that democracy does not necessarily guarantee progressive leaders or good governance. Just as Megawati Soekarnoputri's government of the past three years has left many Indonesians disappointed and sceptical of the benefits of democracy, so Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono's campaign has disappointed in failing to provide a clear reformist platform.

As such, it is apparent that both candidates are far from perfect. But notwithstanding Susilo's obvious imperfections, opinion polls still consistently put him well ahead. It is disturbing, therefore, that someone of Wimar Witoelar's considerable insight sees little difference between the two candidates when compared with the majority of his fellow countrymen.

The fundamental question seems to be: Do Indonesians prefer to go soft on reform and accept the continuation of the cosy patronage-politics associated with the Soeharto era, or hold out for something better? The former is surely what would happen if a so-called "National Coalition" government of the three New Order- era parties led by Megawati comes to power. Megawati has already shown herself to be anything but a reformer.

So it stretches credibility to believe that blended with leaders such as Akbar Tandjung and Hamzah Haz, together with the renewed influence of her husband Taufik Kemas, she would offer much in the way of serious reform over the next five years. Reform would remain mostly just rhetoric, and Indonesians would likely be treated to a weekly diet of political scandals and misuse of power.

The prospect of five years of policy stagnation and political patronage represents not just an unforgivable missed opportunity, but it could be highly dangerous for social stability in a country that needs to keep moving forward if it is to just keep up with its neighbors. The Soeharto-era elites lining up behind Megawati may be quite happy with five years at the reins, but ordinary Indonesians trying to make ends meet may not be prepared to wait.

Judging by the opinion polls, most Indonesians hope for something better -- perhaps some progress towards legal certainty, leading to renewed foreign investment and subsequent job-creating levels of economic growth. While those who support Susilo may be proven to have been misled, at least they want to believe that a modicum of progress towards reform and good governance could be possible.

Wimar believes that Susilo represents the return of militarism and a continuation of the 30-year reign of Soeharto. This seems a little unfair, but certainly highlights an important failure in Susilo's message.

Nonetheless, it seems doubtful that Susilo harbors militaristic tendencies if his ideas of plurality, good governance and his background in the military are anything to go by. And why go to the trouble of spending the weekends studying for a PhD in agricultural economics in his late 50s?

But regardless of this, any autocratic whims Susilo may entertain will be tempered by a parliament that he holds limited influence over. As Wimar knows from experience, this is a situation that former president Abdurrahman Wahid had to struggle with in 1999-2001, ultimately unsuccessfully.

And let us not forget, if Susilo fails to deliver on at least a modicum of reform, good governance and fighting high-level corruption, then his tenure will finish after five years, just as Megawati's seems on the verge of doing after three.

So, it seems unlikely that a Susilo presidency would herald the return of a military strongman, despite Wimar's understandable concerns. Indeed, looking at the way in which PDI- P and Golkar are trying to rush the controversial armed forces bill through on the last day of this parliament, military top brass may be quietly hoping they will not have to deal with a Susilo presidency.

After all, Susilo has expressed his reservations over the clearly anti-reformist bill, calling for its postponement for further debate until the new session of parliament in October. In view of PDI-P and Golkar's sudden law-drafting zeal, the prospect of such a status-quo coalition beholden to the armed forces is far more disturbing than the prospect of a retired military officer (with a PhD) as a president.

Does simply coming from a military background make one automatically militaristic or unsuitable for a political career? In some cases this may well be true, but a closer look at Susilos record fails to support this view in his case. His rise through the ranks was based on merit, unlike other senior officers in the military at that time, who were promoted thanks to their close or family relations with the Soeharto clan.

Furthermore, unlike many senior TNI officers, Susilo's record appears to be relatively clean. While Kaster (chief-of-staff for territorial affairs), he was also responsible for drawing up reforms that would prevent the participation of active officers in politics and enforce the retirement at the age of 55 -- hardly the track-record of someone with the conservative and unimaginative military mindset that Wimar describes.

Susilo has also often expressed his views on bureaucratic reform, separation of the branches of government and the importance of political neutrality in critical portfolios within government. The fact that he has a grasp of these issues and can elucidate them in public is at the very least promising.

To give a further example, Susilo recently attended a forum of experts from the Partnership for Governance Reform, which aims to foster good governance in Indonesia. Susilo was enthusiastic in his praise of the group and its 20 urgent policy priorities, and cited a high-cost economy, corruption and poor public services as consequences of a lack of good governance. Meanwhile, Megawati was invited to the forum, also attended by the Sultan Hamengku Buwono X, but failed to attend.

Wimar is absolutely right to be sceptical and to stress the importance of developing civil society in parallel. But Indonesians have an important choice to make that unfortunately cannot wait. In the absence of perfection everything is relative. And there are still important discernable differences.

As many Indonesians seem to confirm, they feel there is a choice between the certainty of status quo and the hope, if only a glimmer, of potentially small victories over the next five years on the road to reform and progress towards better (if not yet good) governance.

The author is a freelance writer on Indonesian politics