Indonesia’s first ever direct presidential elections have come and gone and Indonesians, as well as certain foreign observers, breathe a sigh of relief that everything happened so smoothly (except for various vote-counting mishaps). The market reacted positively to the event, though cynics would point at the significant support for the Golkar party to explain why big business is so happy. It is very interesting for us at this point to analyze more deeply the political thinking that goes on behind all the hype and propaganda: leaders do not work in a vacuum; the work and maneuverings of their parties will make and break them, and this is especially true for certain candidates.
It is a telling point that following Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s lead, the Golkar party has arranged alliances with Megawati and her party, as well as the Kebangkitan Bangsa Party. At present, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono seems to be set in his preference to not be involved with Golkar; meanwhile his running mate Yusuf Kalla has been known to differ in opinion, as he has been heard to state that an alliance with Golkar, is project that may be welcomed by their platform. That Wiranto received as much support as he did was probably expected, as a significant portion of the public evidently seems to yearn for a return to the ‘paternal tough love’ of New Order regime; but civil liberty enthusiast worldwide must be baffled that 20-odd percent of the population were enthralled by the premise of his presidency.
Things are definitely changing in Indonesia, but disappointed supporters of Amien Rais would tell you that things are not changing quickly enough. As is well known by voters, Amien Rais enjoys the support of the popular Muslim party Partai Keadilan Sejahtera (PKS), though PKS’ decision to support Rais probably came too late to sway the masses to vote for, to his proponents, the most progressive candidate. That PKS narrowed their choice to Wiranto and Amien is of immense interest in itself: what were the considerations in picking Wiranto, who is very much an Orde Baru symbol? Perhaps they have been looking for a strong leader who has shown an inclination to support Muslim interests, by allowing “dak’wah” (the spreading of Islamic teaching) to mushroom in the country (which was very much controlled during Soeharto regime), who is committed to changes (as opposed to Megawati who was proven to be half-heartedly implementing the reform agenda), and is not perceived to be corrupt. Irresponsible speculation aside, the PKS party’s current strategy now seems to be to build a more responsible parliament that could take bigger role in a checks and balance system, take a good case-model, for example in Jakarta provincial government, where they have non-controlling majority in the local parliament, and if successful, win the hearts of voters in the 2009 election.
At this point I would like to pick up on the earlier thread that businesses are content with PDIP and Golkar leading the party race because of financial security reasons, and for this particular tangent one must wax philosophical: the argument goes that the free market is a good thing for nations, as growth and productivity are best stimulated by competition and a small government; however, another relevant school of thought is that in developing countries, only a minority of the population wise to the workings of the capitalist state will be able to benefit from this system. The predicted result is that free markets will not surface; instead human nature will ensure that monopolies (in our case a monopoly by the state, in all honesty) will rule the economy, and this condition will be worsened by Indonesia’s own unfortunate penchant for corruption, collusion, and nepotism (KKN). Arguably, this is exactly what happened during Suharto’s Orde Baru, and some observers today still contend that Indonesians had become too materialistic, essentially the embodiments of Karl Marx’s worst nightmare. I posit the view that KKN is more to blame, and that we should not eschew the free market because the pampered children of kleptocrats and their minions prefer the short term self-aggrandizing wealth that is the husk of capitalism, and throw away the sweet and long-lasting nectar within: entrepreneurship, hard work, responsibility, and sacrifice. These are the values that make a free market work, but I digress. The problem, of course, is that it is yet to be proven if PDIP and Golkar are interested in a more level market playing field; the possibility certainly exists that they may have been captured by groups interested in a more concentrated market. Proponents of any decent form of competition in developing countries must acknowledge the fact that a large portion of the population of such a nation cannot overcome the barriers of entry into the market proper, either because they are too poor to acquire capital, or they lack the credentials (educational, etc) to borrow from financial institutions. Ergo, most successful Indonesian entrepreneurs must either be well connected from the beginning or just inexplicably lucky; obviously this is not a condition we want to foster. The difficulty then is to include the less fortunate members of Indonesian society into the market proper, knowing that the path of national education, though necessary, will take too long to help those people who need assistance now (ideally, education and training shall be administered concurrently with the opportunities I will mention below). Some pioneers have suggested ideas such as allowing movable property as collateral for loans, or even selling ownership for very small patches of land for hawkers (plots that these people can trade, no less); the main objective is of course to strengthen the legal standing and to expand the financial opportunities of small entrepreneurs. I offer the opinion that the currently operating pawn shops and cooperatives are simply not enough to help small businesses because they do not confer a sense of legitimacy and self worth. With all their talk of fighting poverty, it would be refreshing and interesting to hear the surviving candidates speak more and in detail of their own strategies regarding this matter.
Returning to the issue of current politicking, Golkar’s recent announcement seeking consolidations with Megawati, Partai Kebangkitan Bangsa (PKB) and Partai Persatuan Pembangunan (PPP) shows a desire to court Megawati’s considerable power base and the support of a Muslim party (that perhaps is more in line with how Golkar works). If such an alliance comes to pass, it will serve to strengthen the Golkar party’s hold in the next government, so the question then becomes how the other parties and leaders will react to this loyalty realignment program. In a recent interview, Amien Rais (AR) raised the issue that during Colin Powell’s visit to Indonesia, the United States Secretary of State only met with one Presidential candidate, and it was not Megawati; a quick process of elimination should tell you that AR was referring to SBY, and that the United States’ support for SBY was implied. During any other time, this would be a non-issue, perhaps even a gesture that should promote confidence; but the current political climate of the world, as well as religious and social issues conspire to turn this otherwise innocent statement into a cryptic warning for Indonesians to not vote for SBY, lest they inadvertently support the Masonic machinations of Halliburton. Tasteless joking aside, AR raised the important issue of the sovereignty of Indonesians, to be specific, their right to be informed when a foreign administration favors a certain presidential candidate over the other for the runoff, so that people as rational individuals may cast their votes accordingly. Turning our attention to the Wiranto and Wahid team, a more recent update on their quest for justice revealed that their lawyers were just not able to gather the evidence to support the claim that their campaign had been somehow deprived of some five million votes; apparently the Wiranto team has expressed their willingness to accept the Court of Constitutions’ decision. Though many observers have stated that the Wiranto team’s suit was at best futile in the face of such a successful election process (and at worst frivolous), in hindsight the case and its result showcased how far we have come in terms of legal certainty and authority. Of course, observers of Indonesia’s developments in legal reforms and how the Justice System works will be right to argue that there is still much work to be done, especially in addressing the infamous corruption of that system.
Incentives
A useful way of assessing our elections this year is of course by comparing it to another nation’s election process; it just so happens that campaigns have begun for some time in the United States in anticipation of the November elections. One of the more glaring distinctions between our own elections and the one in the US is the sheer amount of focus and massive amounts of information regarding the two candidates and their supporters. Obviously, this is because of the importance of this year’s elections in the US; if Bush and the Republicans win, the world will see a continuation of the Iraq campaign, possibly even more pre-emptive actions against nations such as Iran and North Korea. The policies of John Kerry, the Democrats’ candidate, with regards to foreign policy and America’s War on Terror seem to be more reactive and to welcome a more multilateral approach. Although other issues such as the economy, education, and health care (and minor issues like abortion, gay marriage, and stem cell research) are also important factors the candidates will talk about for this year’s US elections, the significance of the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime and the argument about the legitimacy of that act and what follows may as well eclipse everything else. One may offer the view that America is currently embroiled in a battle of wills with itself; never before has ideology come to the forefront so strongly for this generation of Americans, dragging with it the minds and wills of many Americans who otherwise would never have been interested in the elections if not for this, the continuing resolution of the September 11th attacks. In short, then, many Americans have an interest that their candidate should win, and these candidates offer different ways of tackling the major fears of today’s Americans, and perhaps (superficially at least) materialistic interests are somewhat toned down this time around. What I am trying to point out here is that it took nearly three thousand people to die on September 11th 2001, and for more than a hundred thousand young men and women’s lives to be endangered on the fields of battle for Americans – a people the rest of the world view as such decadent materialists – before an election can become such an important, emotionally charged event. Americans would argue that their War on Terror involves much more than the September 11th attacks, but as it is very easy to access their arguments over the internet I will not repeat them here; suffice to say that I tried my best to crystallize these arguments. Despite the relative success of our own elections, if we take voter turnout as the primary indicator, we are forced to arrive at the inescapable conclusion that the fervor and nationalistic spirit that so energizes this year’s US elections is noticeably absent from our own.
While driving around the Bunderan HI a few days ago I noticed that a group of rent-a-protestors was staging a demonstration against the federalization of Indonesia. My dismay at witnessing this event was not directed at their ideology, it was as legitimate as any; but rather at the idea that this may be as nationalistic as we can get. Never mind the fact that federalism – really an extension of the presently flawed regional autonomy system – may make more sense economically and in governance terms for an archipelago like Indonesia, the protest never even addressed this, instead they produced predictable yells and condescending placards about how Indonesia’s youth must stay united if they are to remain strong; but then again, what can we expect from people who were most probably paid to man the event? This is unfair of course, as there are political parties and other movements, such as the Partai Keadilan Sejahtera, who seem to be very earnest and serious about their ideology and provide clear and practicable policies on how to implement it. But the truth is that so many people are just not involved in national discussions, and what causes this is an absence in our political system of a conjunction, a meeting point, of interests between the government, good governance, big business, and households. This is an atmosphere that is changing, for example with the call to arms from Indonesia’s very empowered anti-corruption commission, the Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi, which is currently processing two corruption cases including the Abdullah Puteh helicopter procurement scandal, with six or so other major cases under preliminary investigation. The problem is that people who are energized by the discrete efforts to fix our country are few and far between, let alone those who have the capabilities of thriving in that environment and make a living out of it (outside of the rent-a-men, of course). Many households and firms are guilty of this apathy, as they desire the economic and social security without contributing anything worthwhile to their own pet ideology – if they even have any, and push the burden of accomplishment to those who do contribute (and perhaps are lobbying for their own interest). Hopefully the work of our civil society and other activists will bring those uninterested in the political development of our country into the fray; it would be a shame if it took a major terrorist attack on Indonesian soil to achieve this.
With a number of solid developments, including the continuing implementation of the government’s White Paper to stimulate the Indonesian economy, Indonesia’s current standing in the world arena is at the moment tentatively but steadily improving. It is important that Indonesians do not forget that this present stability can be taken away swiftly if we neglect to maintain the foundations of our nation, which is continually under threat from self-destructive forces that do not care for the long term sustainability of our way of life.
(aws)
