A small step for Indonesia, The first step for reform 1998-05-21 The Habibie presidency will be a transitional phase. There is a possibility, ever so
remote, that he might seize the opportunity and transform himself into the national
hero of reform. This will be a tall order for this leader. His elevation to the
presidency, even on a transitional basis, will mercifully break some of the tired old
cliches surrounding the presidency, namely that the President has to be a Javanese
military man. Habibie is a civilian and of Sulawesian background by birth and early
development, although his mother is Javanese1.
The country is nowhere near the end of its political crisis. The announcement by Pres.
Soeharto to resign on Thursday should not be seen as ending Indonesia's political
problems. His resignation does however represent an important step along the path to
moving Indonesia to a substantive Post-Soeharto era.
His replacement by Prof Habibie in a hasty but relatively well orchestrated and
mildly dignified ceremony at the State Palace was met with great relief from elements
of the Indonesian middle classes and international stakeholders in Indonesia.
Nonetheless not all are satisfied. The mood of the students in and around the
Parliament House remains defiant. They do not see Habibie as a credible or
legitimate leader2.
Key issues of legitimacy remain unresolved. The dignified little ceremony will, in
hindsight, be seen as altogether too hasty. Why were there no leaders of the
Parliament invited to the ceremony? Is it really possible to say that “I will relinquish
all of my presidential powers at the end of this speech?” There was something of a
shotgun wedding atmosphere to the ceremony.
The Parliament should be expected to continue to demand that they have the right to
anoint the President. In this regard the Parliament has the support of the students.
The Parliament, however, has its own problems with legitimacy. The students do not
see this Parliament as a legitimate reflection of the will of the population, and remain
quite suspicious of the reform credentials of leaders of this institution. For elements
of the elite outside the Parliamentary structure, particularly the Megawati faction, the
use of this Parliament to undertake this succession function is also problematic. Like
the students they do not see this Parliament as legitimate. Unlike the students they
may not wish to take the expedient approach that the students may seek to take.
1 The issue of “Javanese” has to me, over the years, become increasingly less an issue of “genetics”
and increasingly more one of “cultural connectivity”. For example try as he might, Prof Amien Rais,
who hails from Central Java, has very limited appeal to fellow ethnic Javanese, while Megawati
Sukarnoputri, who is mostly non-Javanese by ancestry has a much deeper appeal and support base
among ethnic Javanese. Perhaps those old clichés about Javanese being obsessed with harmony and
refined tranquility even at the expense of clarity hold some relevance certainly in terms of political
connectivity.
2 This was certainly my impression as I walked around the Parliament building that momentous
Thursday morning. While they were all pleased that he had resigned, some held the view that it was
really a political trick and they he would rule from behind the scenes. Others felt that he was indeed
gone, but that his replacement was, as it were, merely a “different bottle, but same wine” or similar
words to that effect!! Others believed it may be possible to start moving ahead but that sustained and
serious pressure must be maintained to counterbalance the resistance to reform from the vested
interests that would continue to populate the commanding heights of the political system.
Such are the dramas of a political system seeking to re-invent itself behind the fig leaf
of constitutionality. Indeed we will all have to get used to such public political
squabbles as they will become a fact of life under the more deregulated political
system that is about to emerge.
The role of the military has been most interesting. Almost wholly absent from the
street barricades has been any Kopassus troops. In full view have been marines,
military police, and air force strike force. This begs the question of why the core
support base of Lt Gen Prabowo has been kept away from the public3.
For the students and Amien Rais, Prof Habibie lacks legitimacy, but a compromise
with Habibie being seen as a “transitional” leader could be a way out.
For the students and NGO leaders, an important issue now includes the calling of
Soeharto and associates to legal account for their economic “successes”. Calls for
this received very strong rounds of support from the masses at the Parliament.
Habibie is not immune to these calls. The statement by military commander Wiranto
that Soeharto would not be “chased around” will put him and his organisation at odds
with the substantive reformists. This will be a tricky test of the political acumen of
leaders as they navigate through this emotional mine field.
In terms of the political give and take, the process of establishing which institution
will have authority for developing and passing the new political laws will remain an
issue of core debate4. This is even before substantive debate about the potential
contents of these laws becomes an issue. Ultimately I would expect the Parliament to
win this one.
On economic policy, it was very important to identify that the new Administration
will fully implement its agreement with the IMF5.
3 Interestingly the recently released book by former Pres. Habibie hints at possible concerns about the
constitutional loyalty of these forces to the new Commander-in-Chief.
4 The implications arising from this statement actually set a major change in course for my life. Since
1996, when I first set pen to paper to seriously conceptualise what a post-Soeharto Indonesia would
actually look like and demand, it was my fervent conclusion that any post-Soeharto era elections
would be genuine, competitive, free and fair. Given the extraordinarily over-regulated system in place
at the time, it was clear to me that the highest priority nationally would have to be given to changing
the so-called 5 political laws of 1985 (that dealt with parties, elections, the legislature, referenda and
mass social organisations). My view, given the essentially constitutional nature of the political
transition, was that the only appropriate place to look for the drafting of these new laws would be the
Department of Home Affairs. At the time I had a great concern that the “market” was so negative
towards Indonesia that it would miss the great advantages in terms of stabilization that democratic
elections would provide. In “market-speak” this suggested a “buying opportunity”. I realized that for
me to waffle on to market players internationally about the absolute likelihood of free, fair and
therefore acceptable elections would be meaningless in terms of shifting entrenched opinions, so I had
to find these legal drafters and use their own words to boost the legitimacy of my convictions.
Through the good connections of one of my favourite lecturers, Prof Bob Elson, I was introduced to
Prof Ryaas Rasyid. After an engaging and at times animated two hour chat about the proposed new
laws, Reformasi and history, he promptly asked me to meet the rest of his team, known eventually as
“Team 7”. Remarkably we all clicked and to my surprise they asked me to come back the next night, a
process repeated every night for the next few months! So during this period it was the financial market
for me by day and the political market by night! Eventually Prof Ryaas asked me “to get a real job”
and work with them full time. It was here that I was introduced to that wonderful organisation,
UNDP, that agreed to recruit me to help the team.
5 I think this comment simply reflected the fact that I was still working for a merchant bank!
{The footnotes in this document were added on 30 December 2006, as I reviewed the
original document – all with the comforting distance of almost 9 years of hind–sight!
The comments are intended to provide both a little historic context that may now have
been forgotten with time and also to provide some auto-criticism of where I believe
my analysis was flawed or perhaps biased. From the original document I have also
corrected typing mistakes and grammatical errors without changing the integrity and
substance of what was initially written. The footnotes therefore do not represent part
of the original document.}
