In Southeast Asia, Indonesia Is an Unlikely Role Model for Democracy
International New York Times | 4 September 2014
JAKARTA, Indonesia — For a while, it looked as if Indonesia’s bad old days had returned.
The
Constitutional Court was hearing an appeal by the losing presidential
candidate, a former army general and son-in-law of Indonesia’s former
dictator, who charged that the election last July had been rigged and
should be overturned.
Outside,
his supporters clashed with the riot police and tried to storm the
court building. The police fired water cannons and tear gas.
But when the justices issued their ruling denying the appeal last month, something strange happened: The losing candidate grudgingly accepted defeat.
The
most competitive presidential election in Indonesian history had come
to a dramatic and peaceful end. Next month, Joko Widodo, the governor of
Jakarta, will be sworn in at the Parliament building, completing a stunning rise from a child of the slums and carpenter to leader of the world’s fourth-most-populous nation.
Sixteen
years after Suharto, the authoritarian president whose corrupt and
brutal military-backed government ruled the country for 32 years, was
forced to resign amid violent pro-democracy protests, Indonesia has
become a role model for peaceful, democratic transfers of power in
Southeast Asia, a region where they are becoming increasingly rare.
In
Thailand, the military overthrew a democratically elected government in
May for the second time in eight years. Malaysia and Cambodia have been
mired in political turmoil since parliamentary elections last year,
which the opposition in each country claims were rigged. Neither
Malaysia, Cambodia nor Singapore has ever had a democratic handover to
the political opposition.
And
those are the democracies. Vietnam has enforced one-party Communist
rule since unification, and Myanmar is taking its first, tentative steps
toward openness after decades of military rule.
Indonesia,
however, in addition to the presidential election, held successful
general elections in April in which nearly 140 million people cast
ballots, a turnout of 75 percent. All of the competing parties accepted
the results.
“There
is no doubt that Indonesia is now Southeast Asia’s most democratic
nation, and this is something no one would have predicted in 1998,” said
Marcus Mietzner, an Indonesia specialist at Australian National
University.
Indonesia’s
record on other fronts still leaves room for improvement. Corruption
remains endemic in the nation of 250 million, religious minorities face discrimination and violence and, according to Human Rights Watch,
members of the state security forces still enjoy “widespread impunity”
for serious human rights abuses. But most of those areas, too, reflect
enormous progress since the dictatorship era.
A
central reason for Indonesia’s success is that, unlike in Thailand,
post-Suharto civilian leaders in Indonesia sidelined the armed forces
from politics. Lawmakers passed constitutional amendments that stripped
the military of its reserved bloc of seats in the House of
Representatives and ushered in direct elections, from president all the
way down to mayor.
Serving
military officers were barred from government posts and political party
activities, and ultimately, Indonesia’s armed forces were forced to
sell off their commercial business interests.
Thailand’s
military, on the other hand, has repeatedly asserted its power during
political crises throughout the country’s modern history — there have
been a dozen successful coups since the 1930s — and it draws its
legitimacy from portraying itself as the sole guardian of the monarchy.
Another
crucial democratic advance for Indonesia, experts say, was its bold
move to regional autonomy across the far-flung archipelago a year after
Suharto’s resignation in May 1998. That decentralization of power broke
Jakarta’s political monopoly and prevented the emergence of a new,
dominant national political force.
It
also gave smaller political groups a way to survive even if they failed
to win a national election. “Forces that lose out in the center can
still hold power in provinces and districts, making them accept the
outcome of political contests,” Mr. Mietzner said.
To
be sure, the move toward regional autonomy was also chaotic, blighted
by the convictions of dozens of regional leaders for corruption.
Mr.
Joko, however, is a notable example of its success. Born in a riverside
slum in the Central Java city of Surakarta, the 53-year-old craftsman
was twice elected mayor and used his election as governor of Jakarta in
2012 to catapult himself onto the national political stage.
He
will be the first president in Indonesian history not to have come from
its Suharto-era political elite or to be a former army general, and the
first to assume the presidency having experience running a government.
He
will be sworn in on Oct. 20 in a ceremony to be attended by the
departing president, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who was constitutionally
barred from seeking a third term. Such a tableau has never been seen in
Malaysia, Cambodia or Singapore.
Simon
Tay, chairman of the Singapore Institute of International Affairs, said
the notion of handing over power to a political opposition had become
an alien concept in those countries because their respective leaders and
governing parties had been in power so long.
“It’s
the whole establishment, and they are not used to anything else,” Mr.
Tay said. “The nature of political change would be very sweeping, and
there is a fear that their countries as they know them would not
survive.”
Indonesia has proved that this does not have to be the case.
The
first years of democratization were tumultuous, characterized by bloody
nationwide street protests, ethnic and sectarian unrest that killed
thousands, terrorist attacks by homegrown Islamist militants and
reluctance by the country’s feared armed forces to bend to civilian
rule. The country’s first democratically elected leader in four decades,
Abdurrahim Wahid, was impeached in 2001 after less than two years in
office on allegations of corruption and incompetence, after tense
political battles with his rivals in Parliament.
Yet
Indonesia persevered, and in 2004, voters chose Mr. Yudhoyono in the
first direct presidential election in the country’s history. Previously,
presidents had been chosen by a legislative body tightly controlled by
Suharto.
Mr.
Yudhoyono’s opponent, Megawati Sukarnoputri, the incumbent president
and eldest daughter of Indonesia’s founder, Sukarno, accepted defeat and
stepped down, although she refused to attend his inauguration.
Indonesia’s latest election has not been wrinkle-free. The loser, Prabowo Subianto,
conceded defeat, but he continues to claim that the election was marred
by massive fraud. After the Constitutional Court ruled against him, Mr.
Prabowo sued the government in the State Administrative Court, which
rejected his suit last week. And the coalition of political parties that
backed his campaign, which will have a majority when Parliament
convenes in October, has threatened to form a special committee to
investigate the election.
While
such a panel would have no legal authority to overturn the result, it
could seek to dent Mr. Joko’s legitimacy before the House of
Representatives.
Political
analysts, however, say this is unlikely because some of the parties in
the coalition are expected to abandon Mr. Prabowo in the coming weeks
and join Mr. Joko, giving him a majority and improving his ability to
pass legislation.
“It
seems that Prabowo does not want to accept defeat, but his so-called
‘permanent opposition coalition’ will change dramatically in the coming
days,” said Ikrar Nusa Bhakti, a political science scholar at the
Indonesian Institute of Sciences in Jakarta.
“Even
though Indonesia is the most populous Muslim country in the world and
has more than 300 different ethnic groups, the democratization process
is on track,” he said. “The military has accepted civilian supremacy,
and that is the key thing.”
No comments:
Post a Comment