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-