What can ailing Indonesia expect from Susilo?

What can ailing Indonesia expect from Susilo?

S.P. Seth, Sydney

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono starts on his new job with
considerable goodwill of his people. He is certainly not the kind
of guy who will set the Thames on fire. He is no radical or
revolutionary. If one wants to put a label on him, he might be
called a reformist. Is this what Indonesia wants?

Yes, and no. Yes, because Indonesia needs a practical and
pragmatic leader to attend to the country's myriad problems.
Having served in several high-ranking military and civilian
roles, Susilo has the right credentials. No, because being
pragmatic is not enough when the nation also needs an over-
arching vision for the future.

Susilo doesn't look like an inspiring figure to rally his
people for a date with destiny. He is a personable guy without
being daunting and threatening. He is the kind of uncle everybody
would want: Benign looking and keen to help. The people of
Indonesia, therefore, have opted for a kind uncle you can depend
on to solve your problems. They seem to feel a certain personal
empathy with him as one of their own. Which is good.

But in so doing they also seem to absolve themselves of any
individual responsibility to do their bit. In other words, having
elected a benign and trustworthy uncle they can now sit back for
the hoped for miracle.

President Susilo is aware of the gap between people's
expectations and the reality on the ground. In his speech after
being sworn in as President, he said, "In the next few months we
will address domestic issues such as stimulating economic growth,
creating jobs, reducing poverty.." He added, "However, I remind
you it will not be addressed within 100 days, with a flick of the
wrist."

There is so much to do and Susilo touched on most of these
tasks. But he stopped short of laying down an integrated plan or
blueprint to go about it. It is early days yet and his Government
will probably flesh out specific policies based on a national
agenda.

What seems to agitate people most, though, is the social
epidemic of corruption. Everybody agrees that corruption is
endemic and has become systemic. Indonesia is rated as the fifth
or sixth most corrupt country in the world. President Susilo has
declared that, "The Government will actively launch anti-
corruption programs which I will personally lead." This is a
major problem.

Is it possible, though, that talking about corruption has
become synonymous with everything that is perceived to be wrong
with Indonesia? In the process everybody blames everybody else,
and nobody has a personal responsibility. Is Indonesia's
celebrated writer Pramoedya Ananta Toer on to something when he
reportedly said: "...Indonesia has no character as a nation...
Indonesian people don't produce, we just consume. Without
producing we will continue to take the short cut of corrupting."

What Toer probably means is that there is a sense of
entitlement among the people without making their own
contribution. And corruption becomes a way of absolving
responsibility as well as subverting the system to gain one's
entitlement. Since the entitlement is based on connections, power
and wealth, it is the well-heeled who corner the biggest share.
In the process, they understandably become the subject of popular
hate.

The point is that almost everybody, given a chance, is in it.
Those not in it (corruption) are looking for ways to get into it.
That is why corruption is so hard to get rid of. It is not only
systemic but is also a mind-set. For instance, in almost all
public dealings people look for an intermediary to facilitate a
transaction through connections or bribery. In a number of such
transactions, things probably would get done in a normal way
without requiring an intermediary. But because of the mind-set
nobody wants to take a chance on doing things in a regular way.

In other words, the abnormal (irregular) has become normal
(regular). Therefore, it needs to be dealt with simultaneously
through (i) law and order, (ii) education and (iii) creating more
wealth for fairer distribution. In other words, there is need for
less rhetoric and more work.

Another explanation would be that Indonesia has not been well-
served by its leadership since independence. Its founding father,
Sukarno, was an inspirational figure alright, but was also too
expansive and dismissive of the details of nation building. For
too long, he allowed the army and the communists to undercut each
other until things got totally out of control.

Which, in turn, brought Soeharto to power. Soeharto ruled by
dictate and failed to create institutions for nation building.
And when it was time for him to go in 1998, the country was a
vast institutional vacuum. His successors haven't yet come to
terms with the tasks ahead.

As the country's directly elected President, Susilo has the
necessary popular legitimacy to take some hard decisions. With
his army background, he is likely to also enjoy the confidence of
the military. He is, after all, one of them. This is a rare
combination for Indonesia's new leader to make the most of it.

Will Susilo do it? Let us wait and see, because it is not wise
to pre-judge the future.

The author, freelance writer, can be reached at
SushilPSeth@aol.com