Why change of presidents has never been smooth

Why change of presidents has never been smooth

JAKARTA (JP): Presidential succession in the country has never
been smooth as past presidents failed to address the aspirations
of their people, observers say.

Political observer Arbi Sanit of the University of Indonesia
said former Indonesian presidents tended to become oligarchic in
ruling the country and pushed aside people's interests.

"The country's former presidents have only been good at the
beginning of their tenure. The longer they held power, the worse
their handling of state institutions became in order to protect
their interests," Arbi told The Jakarta Post on Saturday.

Their oligarchic control was evident in certain acts, such as
corruption, collusion and nepotism (KKN), according to Arbi, who
used to support former president Abdurrahman Wahid.

Separately, Mochtar Pabottingi of the National Institute of
Sciences (LIPI) said that if past presidents had worked in a
respectable manner by avoiding corruption and autocratic rule,
they might have seen out their terms gracefully.

Like Abdurrahman, his predecessors Sukarno, Soeharto and B.J.
Habibie were forced to step down in disgrace before they finished
their tenures.

Sukarno, the first Indonesian president and father of the
incumbent President, Megawati Soekarnoputri, was forced to resign
after a bloody abortive coup blamed on the Indonesian Communist
Party on Sept. 30, 1965. He was then replaced by Soeharto, a
military man, who was in power for 32 years.

Soeharto was forced to step down in 1998 following the
Trisakti incident in which four students were killed and which
triggered three days of nationwide riots.

Habibie assumed power after Soeharto -- whom he called his
political teacher -- at a time when Indonesia was experiencing its
worst economic crisis. His controversial tenure came to an end
after only 521 days when the People's Consultative Assembly
rejected his accountability report.

Abdurrahman was the first president to be elected
democratically. He, however, was removed by the Assembly after
only 21 months in the post.

Arbi, however, blamed the country's Constitution for the
country's bleak history, saying the Constitution does not set
regulations to settle problems when the executive and legislative
branches are in dispute.

He said that amending the Constitution was a must so that it
could prevent the People's Consultative Assembly, which should
encourage a president to improve his/her performance, from
toppling the president.

Arbi also said the country was facing a leadership crisis
resulting from the fact that every succession must be supported
by the military.

"Politicians keep inviting the military to intervene in the
political arena. It, of course, will affect a civilian government
in ruling the country, as it must compromise in many things to
suit the military," Arbi said.

Meanwhile, Pabottingi said that the downfall of all former
presidents began when they violated the Constitution, which
spawned a people's movement to topple them.

"As an example, our first president Sukarno made his mistake
when he declared himself president for life. Of course it was
against the Constitution."

As for Abdurrahman, Pabottingi said it was the allegation of
corruption that brought him down.

"Misdemeanors by our presidents only show that Indonesian
politics still promotes an authoritarian platform and has yet to
find a democratic platform which sides with the people," he said.

Mochtar also said that behind political competition, there was
the military, which played a pivotal role in the replacement of
all Indonesian presidents. (tso)