Will President Abdurrahman Wahid remain a democrat?

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)