Will another power-sharing deal work?
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.