Will another power-sharing deal work?

We now face a carrot and stick approach, writes James Van Zorge, a senior partner in Van Zorge Heffernan & Associates, a Jakarta-based consultancy that specializes in political risk and government relations advisory services.

JAKARTA (JP): When Abdurrahman Wahid came to the presidential office in October 1999, there was reason for optimism. A democrat and reformist -- both in heart and intellect -- Abdurrahman, or Gus Dur, epitomized the ideals and dreams that were encapsulated in the anti-Soeharto movement of 1998.

The weaknesses of other aspiring heirs to the throne with reformist stripes made us believe that his rise to power was the best possible outcome in the elections of the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR).

Megawati Soekarnoputri lacked daring and was too inflexible to make a good politician, Amien Rais too impetuous. In contrast, Gus Dur's previous career reflected a man with keen political instincts and, above all, one who possessed the convictions and courage to confront his enemies of the past.

Unfortunately for the reformist movement, much has gone astray since the beginning of Gus Dur's tenure at the helm. His genius for tactical maneuverings has entangled him in the metaphorical trees, and in the process his reformist agenda has fallen into an abysmal state. Why?

Quite simply, with his National Awakening Party (PKB) holding a small minority in the legislature (DPR), compromise became a necessity. But his numerous compromises with the old (and new) corrupt elite have tainted him, providing his political enemies with the ammunition to undermine his legitimacy.

As his antagonists' wagons started to circle the presidential camp, an even more disturbing note in Gus Dur's playbook was his bid to call for a state of emergency and disband the DPR.

Blocked by the military, he has now resorted to a carrot and stick approach: The carrot being yet another power-sharing arrangement with Vice-President Megawati Soekarnoputri, with the stick consisting of an implicit threat to rally his mass supporters inside his Nahdlatul Ulama organization in preparation for the slaughtering of Golkar.

Sorry, Mr. President, but as your Vice President -- the childhood friend with whom you take delight in belittling -- can lecture you on, the road to democracy can neither be served by blatantly disregarding the rights of your people's representatives, nor by delivering thinly-veiled threats of civil violence to your political enemies.

Leadership in democracies can only be won through setting exemplary standards of conduct -- not by forcing one's agenda through autocratic -- like displays of power.

To be fair, on the topic of exemplary leadership, Abdurrahman should not be the only politician subject to criticism. MPR Speaker Amien Rais exudes excitement over the prospect of the President's impeachment, and has been working hard to find some extra-constitutional means to expedite the process.

As the leader of the MPR, the country's highest body of lawmakers -- whose duty is to uphold the constitution -- such behavior is hardly worthy of any praise.

Akbar Tandjung, the DPR Speaker has proven to be short on leadership, and long on opportunistic forays. Given his long career inside the old and allegedly "new" Golkar, his adeptness at fence-sitting is hardly surprising: Where he stands on the issue of Gus Dur's presidency is purely a function of the direction of the political winds, and little else.

Then there is the entire DPR. Lacking convincing testimonies or evidence brought to bear on any wrong-doing by Gus Dur, Indonesia's legislators have condemned their President to having to prove his innocence before a court of politicians with vested interests.

The attempts by Indonesian politicians and opinion-makers in making analogies between Abdurrahman's case and former U.S. president Nixon's Watergate is pure nonsense.

In the latter, a non-partisan, independent prosecutor found compelling evidence of Nixon's guilt in a criminal offense. Nixon resigned after being faced with the certainty of impeachment in a process that respected the supremacy of law, not because he was being chased down in a political witch-hunt.

With the political momentum now moving firmly against Gus Dur, it is most likely that he will face either impeachment or agree to a power-sharing deal that effectively reduces his role to a ceremonial head of state.

As lawmakers, DPR's members should be asking themselves if such an outcome really fulfills the intent and spirit of the Indonesian constitution. The honest answer is, of course not.

In either outcome -- impeachment or disemboweling the president -- a terrible precedent is established, both for now and into the far future. The precedent not only bodes ill for democracy, but also for any chance for Indonesia to establish a stable and sustainable form of government.

The precedent legitimizes disregard for the rule of law, and will set the stage for future governments to fall back into the autocratic habit of ruling by the whims and personal interests of the country's elite.

The precedent also means that Abdurrahman's successors could easily fall prey to the same fate, which is hardly a recipe for stability.

Realistically, we should not expect Indonesia's leaders to ponder such lofty issues. Abdurrahman is caught in the maelstrom of calls for his impeachment, and he will probably be tempted to hobble together a deal that, at least in the short-run, will guarantee his survival.

But survival for what purpose? We should not forget that such a deal was made before, and there is no reason to believe that a similar deal would prove successful in establishing a semblance of cohesion.

The solution in creating stability lies not in coalitions, but rather in the changing the mind-sets of the opposition. Simply put, it means that the current and future opposition parties would become a loyal opposition, and agree to play its politics by respecting the rule of law.

Until then, Indonesia will continue to be haunted by the ghosts of Soeharto.