There's hope in new legislators

There's hope in new legislators

Doubts and hopes of all Indonesians on whether badly needed
changes for the better will occur colored Friday's installment of
the new legislators. Politics lecturer Riswandha Imawan comments
on the issue in an interview with The Jakarta Post.

Question: How would you judge the ability and composition of
the new legislators?

Answer: Some are, indeed, figures who have changed clothes;
old figures who switched parties. There are figures like Mathori
Abdul Djalil, who is from the United Development Party (PPP) and
now chairs the National Awakening Party (PKB). They were among
critical figures and were threatened with being discharged by
their parties.

What also must be noted regarding the current composition of
legislators is the many relatively young figures from various
disciplines. There is legal expert Yusril Ihza Mahendra,
political expert Amien Rais and economist Kwik Kian Gie, and many
others.

This composition reveals that the entrance of the New Order
extension -- represented by old figures still dumbfounded by the
illusions of the Soeharto regime -- theoretically cannot do
anything in the legislature. Except for the X factor, like money
politics. If they were affected, they would become nobody.

However, in state administration, the bureaucracy needs
specialists. And the many specialists in the legislature will
also make coordination difficult.
Could you elaborate?

Those specialists still consider their own fields as the most
important, which would hamper team work. An accommodative manager
would be needed to organize them into a harmonious orchestra ...
to avoid chaos.

Who do you think would have such managerial skills?

Gus Dur (Abdurrahman Wahid) could meet such needs for the
House of Representatives. He's done that several times. Or if we
were to ignore civil-military differences, the Indonesian
Military Chief of Territorial Affairs Lt. Gen. Susilo Bambang
Yudhoyono could also carry out such a role.

What about the composition of the People's Consultative
Assembly?

Here we have many people who got their seats for political
reasons. I see elections of several of them are not free from the
smell of money politics. Take Fuad Bawazier, he was rejected in
Central Java. But then he made it in Yogyakarta. Anyone would be
suspicious. Abdul Gafur was rejected in Aceh but he made it
anyway to the Assembly. In general, things look bad for the
Assembly. They could be really partisan. But I think at the
House, people there are really committed to the reform agenda.

Would that mean we could hope for a thorough revelation and
settlement of rights abuses and corruption, especially the case
concerning former president Soeharto?

I would think so, especially when the new Cabinet starts. From
the current Cabinet we cannot hope for anything anymore.
(President B.J.) Habibie was finished well before the Assembly's
General Session. If he were reelected with Wiranto as vice
president there would be extraordinary resistance from the
public. In other words, all those who have been assumed to
protect Soeharto's practices of corruption, collusion and
nepotism would no doubt be removed. And those preferred by the
public will come forth.

Are you sure that the current composition of the legislature
renders small the chance for Habibie and Wiranto as his proposed
vice president?

Yes, if efforts persist (to make them president and vice
president), for instance through money politics, the public will
raise massive resistance. The Assembly members should, therefore,
really listen to the voice of the people, that they are objecting
to the Habibie-Wiranto duo.

True, in the current situation of the country we cannot just
abandon the role of the Indonesian Military (TNI) in politics, at
least in the next five years. Anyone who becomes president should
have a vice president from TNI.

Why?

We only have two choices now. One is accommodating them with
the risk that we tolerate militarism, or two, letting them be,
meaning letting their nature develop unchecked to the extent they
take over power. The first choice is clearly better because it
would avoid a greater disaster. It must be understood that the
main function of TNI is to uphold the law while our laws and
rules are now in chaos. The question is why TNI all this time
didn't do this, which is, of course, related to its track record
of 32 years, in which it was not neutral. (swa)