Why does Indonesia have such a problem with succession?

Why does Indonesia have such a problem with succession?

By Bernard T. Adeney

JAKARTA (JP): Succession is a difficult process in every
country in the world. Only one person can cross the bridge and
many people would like to control who that person is.

If the bridge is seldom used, there is uncertainty about its
strength, no matter how good it looks. The more often it is used,
the more confidence people have that it will stand the strain.

If many people died the last time it was used, the anxiety
will be even greater. A tremendous weight rests on whoever is
chosen because so much depends on who makes it across.

The problem of succession is not confined to the transfer of
presidential power in Indonesia; succession is difficult in many
areas of society.

The conflict over who gets across the bridge can simmer for
years, only to re-emerge when the next bridge must be faced.

Democratic structures provide a bridge which is quite strong
in many countries, although this democratic bridge is not
necessarily perfect or ideal.

Political campaigns in the West often degenerate into
elaborate and expensive marketing strategies.

Less than half the people vote and many who do, "vote with
their pocket," i.e. they vote for whoever they think will best
serve their own private interests rather than for the good of the
country.

Nevertheless, the bridge works: Leaders are answerable to the
people, transfer of power is stable and safe and the acrimony of
the campaign is quickly forgotten.

In Indonesia, elections are often an elaborate ritual to
legitimize those who already hold power, rather than true
transfers of power. When a real transfer of power must take
place, the process is traumatic.

A Western democratic bridge may not work in Indonesia because
Indonesians hold a different idea of power.

The historical materials used to construct the Indonesian
bridge of succession have the shape of democracy but the content
is different. The Western democratic bridge depends on concepts
of power and social contracts which are foreign to Indonesians.

Many Indonesians understand power as a "thing," or force, that
can be owned by an individual. Power comes from God and is found
in nature. It can be passed from one person to another, housed in
an object (such as a kris, or traditional dagger), or developed
through spiritual practices.

Power is unitary in the sense that all of it comes from a
single source. Therefore the true exercise of power is not
conflictual. It exists in a state of harmony with other true
emanations of power.

From this perspective, the selection of leadership is
primarily a process, by consensus if possible, of recognizing who
has the power to be a good leader.

Consensus is achieved by deliberation guided by those who
already have power. The power and legitimacy of the new leader
is, in part, passed down from someone who already has power.

Ideally, power is not the arbitrary result of the political
process. It is fated by God.

In the West, power is thought of as a relationship rather than
a possession. Power is the relationship of one person (or group),
to others.

In institutions, this power is located in positions of
authority which define relationships. Power is not a thing, but a
place, a position in relation to others.

A "social contract" binds even enemies together for the good
of the whole, or at least for reasons of self-interest. From this
comes the idea of a loyal opposition.

The members of a loyal opposition are loyal to the institution
and office of power, even if they hate the person who holds sits
in the leader's chair.

Power, according to this model, is multiple and inherently
conflictual. Self-interest is assumed to affect the exercise of
power, therefore power must be divided.

Different relationships of power compete with each other, but
each is limited by the other. Conflict is natural, but it is not
fatal.

If you lose once, there's always another chance. When a
Western democratic election is over, it's over. Since power and
legitimacy reside in the office, the winner is invested with all
the powers and privileges of the office.

The loser may continue to oppose the winner's policies with an
eye on the next election, but the legitimate power of the office
holder is not questioned.

The people decide who they will trust with the office of
power.

Pancasila democracy is not based on a social contract. Society
is not held together by an arbitrary agreement formed by
everyone's self-interest.

The metaphorical key to Indonesian social theory is the image
of the family. Indonesian structures of family are in transition.

Some leaders stress the relationship of brothers and sisters
with an assumption of fundamental equality between all. Others
stress a benevolent patriarchy with the Bapak (father) taking
care of the children.

A patriarchal structure is often wed to a traditional,
"organic" conception of power.

In a patriarchy, the people are not sovereign but dependent on
their leaders. Opposition from the people is not considered loyal
but disrespectful.

The Bapak cannot be opposed without also opposing the
institution of the family over which he reigns. Power is not
multiple or assumed to be in continual conflict, but unitary and
seeks harmony with all.

Power is centralized and comes from the top down. Division or
limitation of power is not considered good. Rather power is
idealized as benevolent.

Power should seek the good of these over whom it is exercised.
Power is not answerable to the people, but to God alone. This is
the kind of power that was exercised by colonialism.

A simple, patriarchal, organic view of power leaves very
little room for democracy. Fortunately, Indonesia has complex and
multiple conceptions of power and the family.

Reality is much more complex than the simple models of power
and family that I have suggested. For many years, Indonesia has
been developing institutions of power and succession which show
increasing concern for the will of the people.

The democratic bridge of succession does not depend on a
social contract conception of government. Within the family
metaphor, there is room for respect between sisters and brothers
who are already adults.

Indeed, the unity of the family depends on it. Likewise, a
more "organic" concept of power is not necessarily wrong in
comparison to the rational, procedural concepts of Western
liberalism.

The Indonesian bridge of succession must bear the weight of a
plural society, which demands that its various voices be heard
and respected.

The old materials of semifeudalism and patriarchy must be
replaced with new materials which can bear the weight of all the
people's aspirations. Indonesia need not bow to Western
expectations or slavishly copy the evolution of Western political
theory.

The writer is a professor of ethics and cross-cultural studies
in the Graduate Program of Religion and Society at Satya Wacana
Christian University in Salatiga.

-30-