Tough times ahead for Megawati without Akbar in presidential race

Sri Wahyuni, The Jakarta Post, Yogyakarta

The three-year prison sentence handed down to House of Representatives Speaker Akbar Tandjung in the case of the abused non-budgetary funds will have long reaching implications. Political observer Afan Gaffar of Gadjah Mada University, who chairs its postgraduate program on local politics, shared his views with The Jakarta Post's Sri Wahyuni.

Question: What is the implication of the sentence on domestic politics, in particular the Golkar Party that Akbar chairs?

Answer: The sentence obviously has a very wide range of political implications. First is in regard to his position at the House, especially whether it is still proper for him to be the speaker and represent the people at the respectable legislature.

True, a final sentence has yet to be reached (the defendant appealed). However, we should not merely rely on legal considerations; There are also moral and ethical principles. A law is just a written agreement on moral and ethical matters.

So to maintain the dignity of the House, Akbar should resign from his position as speaker. He is a convicted person.

Akbar needs to do so not just for the sake of the House and his own dignity, but also to set an example for the whole nation. He should be a good role model.

He failed to manage the money that former president B.J. Habibie entrusted to him. He had created a chance for others to abuse the funds. Therefore, to show his accountability, he should resign right away as House speaker.

Second is the political implications for Akbar. Although he repeatedly said he would stay (in politics), his political career is finished. His dream of becoming president is clearly history.

A convicted person does not deserve the position to rule the country. It's impossible for him to even run as a candidate in the presidential race.

Third is the implications for the Golkar Party, which will depend fully on the attitude of its party's figures. They have to be able to make a clear statement that it is Akbar's case, not the case of Golkar.

It's fine to provide support for Akbar, but not by sacrificing the party. Maintaining his position as party chairman will only endanger the party.

Therefore, strong elements in the party need to be developed to rescue the party. A chairman can come and go but the party's existence should be maintained for the future. What about his repeated claims of innocence?

That (his innocence) is obviously impossible. As a former state secretary, he knew perfectly well how to manage the funds and provide public accountability on its use. He was experienced, as he had been a minister for several times. He surely understood the need for a well-planned program for funds of Rp 40 billion.

His repeated claims are a public lie. He has the right to do so, but the people also have the right not to believe him. Is it possible to make Akbar resign from the chairman's post at Golkar when he seems to be enjoying sufficient support?

There are a number of ways (for the party to make him resign). First is through the party's senior figures, such as Ginandjar Kartasasmita, Harmoko, Oetoyo Oesman and Cosmas Batubara. They have to come up with initiatives to save the party. Second is through a cooperation among all elements in the party's central executive board.

Third is through the regional executive boards, although it will be very hard to do so, especially because most are still solidly under Akbar's control.

However, they need to be convinced that (ousting Akbar from the party) would be for the sake of the party and not for particular individuals. Fourth is through public opinion. With current public opinion, it would be impossible to maintain Akbar (as chairman) in the party.

How can the party be ruled by a convicted criminal? Whatever reason used to maintain Akbar will not be good enough.

These four ways need to be carried out simultaneously by Golkar. Otherwise, it will be dragged down deeper and deeper along with Akbar's political career. The party's future depends very much on how they rescue the party at present. How significant is the role of Golkar's senior figures in saving the party, especially given that they carry the stigma of the New Order regime?

I'm quite sure they are still heard. Besides, the party's leaders at the regency level could also work together to rescue Golkar, by putting pressure on the leaders at the provincial level to use their votes to replace Akbar with someone new.

Regarding the past, who is not part of it? Golkar itself is a part of the past. What is the implication of the verdict for the next presidential race?

Each of the presidential candidates will have fewer rivals. Akbar Tandjung would have been a very tough candidate. Without him in the presidential race, it will make Megawati, for example, face a more solid rival, especially from the Islamic camp. One of Akbar's constituents is KAHMI (the alumni association of the Association of Muslim Students). They will likely switch their vote to whoever represents the Muslim camp.

Therefore, Akbar, who was previously a vote-splitting factor, will likely become a vote-uniting factor in this case. What should the House do regarding Akbar's case?

The House, especially the leaders, need to make up their minds to save the legislature from losing dignity by forcing Akbar to quit from the post of House speaker. If they fail to do so in a subtle way, they can give Akbar a vote of no confidence. Otherwise, the position of the House as a respectable legislature body would be further questioned. How can a convicted criminal chair a respectable institution? It doesn't make any sense.