The reformists' battle

The reformists' battle

World Bank President James D. Wolfensohn understandably ducked
political questions raised during his meeting with about 60 non-
government public figures, including vocal critics of the
government, in Jakarta last week. It was a commendable act on his
part to meet them and then to openly admit that the bank was
mistaken with its rosy assessment of Indonesia last year, a
misjudgment which has perhaps exacerbated the present economic
crisis.

It would have been inappropriate to expect him to address
political questions, or even nudge the government towards the
political reforms for which these critics have been calling.
Wolfensohn is, after all, a guest of the government, and a banker
whose chief concern, and sole domain, is the economy.

It is equally understandable that these reformists should have
gone to the meeting expecting that the World Bank chief would,
for once, address political questions in Indonesia. After all,
didn't the World Bank, together with the International Monetary
Fund (IMF), suggest in September that good governance was now
very much part of their considerations in extending loans?
Furthermore, was it not the IMF that imposed the sweeping
economic reforms that the government, unwillingly, has now
pledged a commitment to, in return for a US$43 billion rescue
package?

Some people might dispute the assertion that the reforms had
been imposed upon the government by the IMF; the IMF, out of
politeness, would be the last to claim to have done so. But it
did not escape the attention of government critics that the
reforms promised by President Soeharto in a letter of intent sent
to the IMF -- reforms including the dismantling of monopolies,
cartels and the removal of special business privileges -- were
reforms which they themselves had long advocated. The IMF, in
just over one week of negotiating, succeeded in persuading the
government to instigate reform, something the critics had been
unable to achieve over many years.

That it should take external pressures to convince the
government of the need to begin economic reform must have
suggested to these reformists that similar external pressure
would add impetus to the push for the political reforms they have
been seeking all these years.

In recent weeks, these critics have stepped up the campaign
for their cause, arguing that since the economic crisis had cut
so deeply into the nations psyche and become such a crisis of
confidence, the only solution could be sweeping political
reforms.

But they cannot count on the World Bank, or any other major
foreign lenders, to use their influence and powers of persuasion
on the government. These donors chief interest is in the safety
of their loans and investments in Indonesia, and in the country's
ability to repay them. Previously they must have felt that their
money was safe and were willing to turn a blind eye to the
business monopolies, privileges and other irregularities in the
way the government managed the economy. But now, in this time of
crisis, there was no choice but to insist on economic reform, at
the risk of being seen to interfere in Indonesia's domestic
affairs.

Such an incentive does not exist when it comes to political
reform. On the contrary, the donors best bet lies in the
perpetuation of the current status quo, with a structure and
system which supports a government committed to economic reform
and which has promised to pay back its loans.

While some of those taking part in the meeting with Wolfensohn
were disillusioned by his refusal to discuss politics, one of
their number felt that the more important point was that they had
succeeded in getting their message across to him by explaining
that the government faces growing disenchantment.

If anything, the most that these reformists can expect from
abroad is sympathy, for now and the foreseeable future. In the
end, they must fight their own battles.