Will President Abdurrahman Wahid remain a democrat?

George Aditjondro Ph.D who is well-known for his research on the wealth of Soeharto and Habibie, talked to The Jakarta Post recently in Singapore on numerous issues, including the current political changes taking place in Indonesia.

JAKARTA (JP): George Aditjondro has just ended a three-month trip to 10 countries -- the United States, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Germany, the Philippines, Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaysia -- doing what he has always done: tracing the wealth of Indonesia's autocrat Soeharto and his cronies.

A former journalist, a noted scholar on East Timor, a human rights activist and an outspoken critic of the government, George is now teaching sociology of corruption at Newcastle University, Australia. He was forced to flee to Australia in 1995 when his name appeared on a police's wanted list for "slandering" Soeharto. At that time he was a lecturer at Satya Wacana University, Salatiga, Central Java.

His passport was confiscated in 1997 but was returned by the Indonesian Embassy in Australia soon after Soeharto fell from grace in May last year. He came back to Jakarta for the first time last September when he launched his book From Soeharto to Habibie: Two Peaks of Corruption, Collusion and Nepotism in the New Order Regime. His other book is Harta Jarahan Soeharto (Soeharto's Plunder) published in 1998.

Question: What is your view about our newly elected President Abdurrahman Wahid, who is popularly known as Gus Dur?

Answer: To me, Gus Dur is the third president of Indonesia. What I mean is Habibie became president by accident since Soeharto was forced to step down and Soeharto anointed Habibie as his successor. It is also important to delegitimize Habibie's leadership because people didn't choose him as president in May 1998. In short, Habibie is not a constitutional president of Indonesia.

I have known Gus Dur since he was a columnist for Tempo magazine, where I worked from 1971 to 1982. I got to know him in the late 1970s. He would type his articles on a desk beside mine. At that time, Tempo was still in its old office in Senen (Central Jakarta).

After I left Tempo, I met Gus Dur as an NGO activist, when he set up his Islamic school in Ciganjur and joined the LP3ES (a research NGO) program. The two of us also became members of the Asian Cultural Forum on Development. In late 1980s we joined the International NGO Forum on Indonesia, which later became the International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development.

We fought hand in glove against the government's plan to build a nuclear reactor at Muria (a Central Java village). At that time, Gus Dur made his famous threat to hold a hunger strike if the government went ahead with its plan.

Since I left Indonesia (in 1995), I have never met him again. Recently I felt that we had a fundamental difference of opinion, especially on the East Timor issue.

During my visit to Europe months ago, I heard that Gus Dur had earlier traveled to several European cities and that he had changed the issue of mass killings by pro Jakarta militia in East Timor to foreign intervention, notably Australia.

In my opinion, we should pay more attention to the mass killings in East Timor by the militia, supported by the Indonesian Army.

I also felt sorry for Gus Dur when he raised an ultranationalist sentiment, which I think is not true. It's very untypical of him to utter such a thing. It is not the Gus Dur that I knew in the past, whom I exalt as a statesman.

If we look at this issue with a cool head, we can see that Indonesia was the real aggressor when it annexed East Timor in 1976. Now, when the proindependent group won the ballot, the militia terrorized the East Timor people. It was so terrible that only the UN troops could stop the destruction and killings.

Q: Was this the first time you felt sorry about Gus Dur?

A: No. Prior to the 1997 elections, to the surprise of many, Gus Dur shifted his support to Tutut (Soeharto's daughter), right after he said that he supported Megawati Soekarnoputri in the elections.

I was also disappointed with Gus Dur when he, as one of the signatories of Ciganjur Declaration, together with Megawati, Amien Rais and Sultan Hamengkubowono IX, stated that they would give the military six years to relinquish its political role. It means the Ciganjur signatories did not respond to students' demands.

And although the police force is already separated from the military, I still cannot find a difference between the two. They still repress the people.

And I did not agree with Gus Dur when he said that Soeharto should return his family wealth to the government and be given a pardon. It goes against our efforts to uphold equality before the law, or it indicates that there are still some people who are untouchable, especially when he or she is a president.

Forgiving is not Gus Dur's or our problem. It's a matter that should be left up to God. But in terms of respecting the law, Soeharto must be responsible for his acts of corruption. During his reign, he issued hundreds of presidential or ministerial decrees, giving privileges to his family and cronies.

I also want to criticize Gus Dur about the time he doubted the credibility of studies on Soeharto's wealth. How could we distinguish his ill-gotten wealth and from his other wealth, as the Soehartos themselves have argued. We have to rely on such studies. We can use them for the best benefit of our country.

Speaking of corruption, both Megawati and Gus Dur have a lot of homework to do since the People Consultative Assembly (MPR) issued a decree to fight corruption in 1998. But Habibie didn't do his homework well. Not only the Bank Bali case, there are many more cases that have to be solved.

Q: What about Megawati Soekarnoputri as vice president, what is your comment about her leadership?

A: Megawati is consistently conservative on a range of issues, from Timor to Aceh to the military's dual function. But in terms of amendments to the 1945 Constitution, Megawati and the PDIP (the party she led) were very progressive when they proposed to revise the stipulations for an Indonesian president. If we stick to the old stipulations, I can say that the Constitution does not only give too much power to the executive, but is also racist.

Q: It seems you have little hope for this new government...

A: I am a bit skeptical about this new government since it is built upon negotiations among the political parties and the military. The third biggest faction, the Islamic parties, has won three of the most important positions in the MPR: chairman of People's Consultative Assembly, chairman of House of Representatives and President. Hence, when PKB (the National Awakening Party, which was founded by Gus Dur) nominated Megawati as vice president (in the MPR General Session) it was simply an effort to win sympathy from Megawati's supporters.

I hope I got the wrong information, but I heard that Gus Dur had a deal with Gen. Wiranto to persuade Mary Robinson, the UN Commissioner for Human Rights, not to investigate the mass killings in East Timor because that would link Wiranto to the killings. If it is true, I will be very angry. How could a religious leader protect someone who is responsible for the death of hundreds or maybe thousands of people?

Rather than putting faces from the New Order government in the Cabinet, Gus Dur could have appointed intellectuals from universities, like Faisal Basri, who are uncontaminated by Soeharto's cronies.

I remember Faisal was the one who spoke out bluntly about mismanagement in BPPC (the clove monopoly agency) when Soeharto was still in power. The appointment of Kwik Kian Gie is all right, but he should first resign from his position as a president commissioner at ABN AMRO, a Dutch bank which actively supports Soeharto's family companies in the Netherlands.

Q: You seem to be pessimistic about the future...

A: I will not make a judgment until I see what Gus Dur does in his first weeks as President. I agree with one TVRI viewer when he reminded Gus Dur to release all political prisoners. Will Gus Dur respond to this demand? We shall see.

I hate to imagine Gus Dur following Habibie's line when he released a number of political prisoners like Mochtar Pakpahan and Sri Bintang Pamungkas. It was a half-hearted move to show the world that Habibie cared about political prisoners.

If Gus Dur is committed to democratization and reconciliation, he must release all political prisoners without reserve, and he should guarantee that in the future, people cannot be jailed because of their differing opinion or policy with the government.

Speaking for my personal interest, I would like to appeal to Gus Dur to annul my case of slandering Soeharto in 1994. The case is like a Loch Ness monster that can reappear suddenly. Although Soeharto was replaced by Habibie in 1998, my case is still there.

I also want to contribute something in the making of a New Indonesia, but the unsettled case is an obstacle. I heard that Sofjan Wanandi (a businessman), who fled abroad during the Habibie rule, is back because Gus Dur told him to, but what about me?

Q: How do you see the prospect of civil society in Indonesia and the growing signs of political awareness among professionals or the middle class?

A: Civil society and the middle class are different in concept, but both are bourgeois concepts. In the middle class they exclude the workers' movement, and the concept of civil society is also very middle-class minded. But it depends on who determines the concepts.

I prefer to choose a social movement concept, since different classes in society will dissolve in this concept. In fact, social movement was an important key to our political change and democratization in the past, starting from 1998, that is, student movements from many universities. Habibie was very proud to say that his Cabinet produced more laws and regulations than the previous Cabinets. But these laws were only responses to people's demands, to create a more democratic and transparent society.

I think it's better for Gus Dur and Megawati to invite students to settle misunderstandings between them. Moreover, Gus Dur should tell the police to release those people who protested in recent demonstrations. So it means Gus Dur has to pay more attention to controlling the security apparatus, something that Wiranto neglected in the past.

People were demanding their sovereignty in concrete terms. They wanted an end to the forestry concession system in Kalimantan, which was exploited by state capitalism or crony capitalism, and return the profit of their land to the indigenous people. Political parties seem to neglect such demands from grassroot communities. I doubt that Gus Dur and Megawati can sympathize with the local Kalimantan people since they are both from eastern Java and have no experience in dealing with forest problems.

I predict this kind of problem will intensify in the future and the separatist movement in Aceh and Irian Jaya will strengthen because political parties cannot detect dynamism in grassroots communities.

Meanwhile, in urban areas, like in Java, I predict, worker and farmer movements will toughen as well. One of the main reasons is that the political leaders are not ready to talk about agrarian reform, to provide better concepts for the farmers. Notably for Megawati, it was (her father) president Sukarno himself who started agrarian law reform by providing the 1960 Agrarian Law in order to increase the farmers' income.

Q: How do you see the continuing religious clashes in Ambon?

A: The moment Gus Dur used the term "federalism" in his first speech, I saluted him, because the word used to be very taboo. This is a good sign that Gus Dur and Megawati can accommodate people's interest -- local communities, students -- more than just bargaining their positions with other parties.

They were also right when they said our country is basically a maritime country, and they want to revive our potential maritime resources. The concept will have two consequences.

First, Army domination will decline, and the Navy will replace it. Second, it is also a sign that both Megawati and Gus Dur will pay more attention to eastern Indonesia development, most of which comprises maritime provinces. This will decrease the central government's control over the territory's economic potential.

Maluku, for instance, has been a "playground" of Soeharto's family businesses for a long time. Bambang Triatmojo, Soeharto's eldest son, together with businessman Tommy Winata, controlled fishing in Banda Sea, Maluku.

Businessman Sudwikatmono (Soeharto's close relative) had a company, Dayaguna Samudra, operating in the southeastern part of Maluku.

In Central Maluku, Barito Pacific not only owned a plywood company, but also a cement company. In the northern part, Barito Pacific controls most of the forest in Maluku.

So I think Gus Dur already knew that the root of communal fights in Maluku does not lie with religion or ethnicity, but with economic interests spearheaded by Jakarta capitalists, and they were the ones who orchestrated riots by exploiting ethnic and religious tensions.

Q: What about the Republic of South Maluku (RMS) movement which has sought independence for a long time?

A: I would tend to say there is a new RMS because they see how the sea, forests, all were owned by Jakarta's people. And among the Christian groups in Maluku, there is a strong consciousness about Maluku nationalism. The Islamic groups in Maluku can identify themselves as being part of the central government since the leader (Soeharto) was a Muslim, and the local authority in Maluku, was also a Muslim.

Thus, the Christian groups in Maluku felt they were double- minorities since they did not have access in either economics or politics. Although fighting between villages has been common for a long time in Ambon, they never burned down places of worship like mosques or churches (like they do lately).

These places of worship were built by both Muslims and Christians. This is a testimony to their tolerance of each other, until somebody engineered riots in the region.

I bet Gus Dur already knows the mastermind of these riots. Rather than saying it was orchestrated by a certain "General K" he should have looked at the root of the problem. I think this is the only solution to the Maluku problem. However, I think the major obstacle for Gus Dur is not in Ambon, but in Aceh.

Q: Why is that?

A: I think Gus Dur is too confident to say that he is an Islamic leader and pretends to know the root of Aceh's problem. He thinks that he can still persuade the Acehnese to live in unity with the Indonesian republic. In fact, Acehnese nationalism does not only belong to Aceh Independent Movement activists in Sweden, or hundreds or thousands of political refugees in Malaysia, but also to Aceh's middle class or the educated people. Now the Acehnese are demanding Gus Dur's promise of a referendum that he once said in Aceh. I'm afraid that Gus Dur would fail because of the Aceh referendum, just like Habibie failed because of East Timor's referendum in August.

Q: Weren't human rights violations by the military the real issue in Aceh? Is a referendum the best way for Aceh instead of investigating the mass killings during martial law in the 1990s?

A: I disagree with that kind of argument. For me, the problems in Aceh are not only military violations on human rights, but more seriously the military protection of foreign capitalists by violating human rights. If a Jakarta businessman wanted to expand his forest concession area, and the local people rejected that proposal, he would easily label them separatists. That's why the Acehnese reject this sort of solution.

Second, the Islam practiced in Aceh is culturally different from that practiced in Java, notably as Gus Dur understands it. So, the seeds of Acehnese nationalism are based on three things: military repression (since martial law was imposed), economic inequity and a different interpretation of Islam. How Gus Dur will manage the Aceh problem specifically in the future, we have to see.

Q: Do you think he will succeed?

A: The situation in Aceh is very complex because it also involves international political and economic interests. For instance, Soeharto's family businesses have been merged with the "Aceh mafia" businesses for a long time and Bambang Triatmojo, with his Singaporean-based company, has a 20-year contract to deliver gas from PT Arun to East Asia. With this contract, Bambang's company becomes one of the biggest tankers in Asia, transporting 10 percent of the world's total liquefied natural gas. His company also expanded into Gulf countries, like Qatar. Does Gus Dur have the guts to cancel that contract -- which means that he has to cut businesses with Pertamina, Mobil Oil, an international oil company and with the Soeharto family? If Gus Dur has the guts to do that, I will salute him and it will please many Acehnese.

Q: What should Gus Dur and Megawati do to maintain harmony and unity of this nation which has been raked by continuous unrest and tension in a number of its provinces?

A: I would argue that one of our major mistakes is our obsession to see Indonesia, from Sabang to Merauke, as a whole nation and nation-state. I think Gus Dur and Megawati should follow what Gorbachev and Raisa did for Russia. They paved the way for Russia to become a commonwealth of independent states.

In the past, Russia was a unitarian state like Indonesia. It was centrally managed by the Communist Party. Like Indonesia, it also has many ethnic groups.

Now Russia is a federation. I hope Gus Dur and Megawati will succeed if they don't rely too much on the 1945 Constitution. Let go of the Constitution and see the reality, that Indonesia might become a commonwealth of states. Release Aceh and Irian Jaya after East Timor.

In fact, one of the biggest challenges for Gus Dur is West Kalimantan, where the native Dayaks see the Madurese as a new economic colonizer. That's part of the reasons why the two ethnic groups were involved in numerous clashes in the past.

Q: Does it mean that all these regional issues can be solved only with an economic solution?

A: To exact an economic solution there must be legal reform. Traditional law should be incorporated into the national law. So we also need law reform. In this sense, admitting the traditional law means giving democracy to the grassroots.

It is true that we need representative democracy, but we need direct democracy more. As a consequence, for example, people who live under high-voltage electricity cables can protest directly or indigenous people can protest the government's land-reform policy.

Whether Gus Dur wants to conduct agrarian reform is still a big question, whereas NGO activists have, for a long time, built a consortium for agrarian reform.

Gus Dur, as I knew him before he became President, is a democrat and wanted to listen to other people's opinions, but will he remain so after becoming President? (Ignatius Haryanto)