Why Habibie must go

Why Habibie must go

The past week certainly was a busy one for President B.J.
Habibie. Looking after the routine daily affairs of state and
government alone would be exhausting enough to sap the energy of
any person in this time of crisis. But not for our spirited
incumbent chief executive. With the presidential election only a
little more than a week away, Habibie managed to engage in a
flurry of extraneous activities designed to boost his chances of
reelection by the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR), which is
the country's supreme legislative body. On Thursday last week,
for example, the President invited all the regional
representatives in the MPR to his private residence in Jakarta.
Earlier in the week, Habibie, who is running for the presidency
on a Golkar Party ticket, invited the entire Golkar faction in
the Assembly for a string of meetings at the same address.

Although the meetings were publicly billed as dinner
gatherings arranged by the President to congratulate the
legislators for their nomination in the wake of June's general
election, there was little doubt in the minds of observers about
Habibie's true objectives: Jakarta was rife in the past week with
rumors that resistance was growing within the party over
Habibie's nomination as Golkar's sole candidate for the
presidency. Surely this is a development which the incumbent
President cannot feel comfortable about.

Those in Golkar who oppose Habibie's candidacy for the
presidency, or at least his sole candidacy, naturally have their
reasons for doing so. First of all, there is the New Order stigma
that continues to cling to Habibie. Having been a long-time
protege of the former autocratic president, of whom Habibie in
the past only spoke of in glowing terms, Habibie is widely seen
in Indonesia as an inseparable -- and incorrigible -- part of the
now discredited authoritarian New Order regime of former
president Soeharto. But more to the point is the performance
which Habibie has managed to deliver during the year or so that
he has been President of Indonesia. During that time, from May
last year up to the present, Indonesia has seen its fortunes and
its international reputation sink lower and lower into the depths
of ignominy.

While South Korea, Thailand and other Asian countries have
managed to successfully weather the Asian economic crisis, things
have been little better now in Indonesia than they were during
the first months Habibie took over from Soeharto. Indeed, there
are those who claim that conditions in this country are worse now
than they were in the last months of the Soeharto regime. The
still unresolved Bank Bali scandal is one dramatic illustration
to underscore the still rampant prevalence of corruption and
power abuse. The government's failure to halt corruption has
further eroded what is left of its credibility, both at home and
abroad, and hence its chances to obtain the vitally needed
disbursements of international aid.

Politically, the country continues to be in turmoil. The
secession of East Timor has fueled similar demands for self-rule
in several other provinces, particularly Aceh and Irian Jaya, but
also on a smaller scale elsewhere, such as in Riau. With this
development and with the protest actions that have emerged as a
result of the government's inability to bring about justice has
come an escalation of human rights abuses by the state's security
apparatus. For the first time in Indonesian history, Indonesians
face the possibility of a trial by an international tribunal for
war crimes and crimes against humanity allegedly committed by
Indonesian soldiers in East Timor.

In brief, to say that there has been no meaningful progress
during the period that Habibie has been President, is a gross
understatement. In many respects, such as the prevalence of
corruption, human rights abuses and security for investors, this
country ranks among the lowest in the world. It is true that
civic freedoms are better now than they were under Soeharto.
Those who recall the mass student actions that brought down the
old administration, however, must concede that the birth of those
new freedoms was a historic necessity. In other words, they
prevail despite, rather than because of, Habibie. The selective
release of political prisoners could serve as an indication that
the government's thinking at present differs little from that of
the previous authoritarian regime.

Today being the day that Golkar is slated to begin its long
awaited leadership meeting, its seems apt to suggest, given the
circumstances mentioned above, that the party dump Habibie as its
presidential candidate. We are aware that certain regional and
sectarian interests were a consideration in the selection of
Habibie. However, it must be kept in mind that for any party that
professes to work for the nation's best interests, the good of
the nation as a whole must come before anything else. Surely
better candidates than Habibie can be found in a party that has
ruled this country for more than three decades.