Indonesia Needs to Exorcise the Ghosts Of Sukarno and Suharto to Move On
Yohanes Sulaiman & Phillip Turnbull | April 13, 2012
 |
| All this sounds like modern Indonesia has only learned to commit the same mistakes of the past.’ |
There has been a growing number of calls to rehabilitate the good names of Sukarno and Suharto. We’ve been told it’s all in the name of national reconciliation and a desire to move on. Yet at the same time, reconciliation is one of those political buzzwords that ironically has the ability to divide people. One wonders whether politicians know what they mean when they use it.
For all its positive overtones of forgiveness and moving on to a better future, reconciliation is to do with the memory of past history and a sober judgment on a nation. In essence, one cannot have reconciliation, or forgiveness of past errors, without a serious attempt to open up the nation’s history; trying as objectively as possible to evaluate the past without keeping dark events hidden or presenting a politicized version of the nation’s past in an attempt to legitimize contemporary political agendas.
Reading back into the past and forcing onto it the agendas of contemporary interest groups is a common pitfall across the ages. It is always an indication of a false familiarity that serves neither historical truth nor the contemporary desire to make sense of the past.
Only by recognizing that Sukarno and Suharto are no longer our contemporaries can we hope to see them more clearly, and in doing so, ourselves.
It is fair to say both Sukarno and Suharto had a disproportionate influence on the history of modern Indonesia, and remain larger-than-life characters.
In President Sukarno, many people found a great nationalist, someone who put Indonesia on the pedestal of international recognition, whose rhetoric was unmatched and who united a fractious Indonesia under the banner of nationalism, religion and, controversially, an Indonesian form of communism.
He led a collection of serfs — a former colony — into a great nation, making world leaders in London, The Hague, Moscow, Beijing and Washington look on in awe. He was a man not easily dismissed, neither here nor abroad.
However he did eventually bring the country to the brink of ruin. There was also gross economic mismanagement, leading to shortages of basic daily necessities and, eventually, the collapse of the national economy.
Sukarno presided over the dismantling of Indonesia’s fledgling democracy and imprisoned many of his political opponents, such as Sutan Sjahrir, Sjafruddin Prawiranegara and Mohammad Natsir. Under his reign, the formerly professional and independent civil service created by the Dutch was politicized. Under Sukarno, public servants had to support the government’s party or they were fired.
He also weakened the independence of the Indonesian judiciary and demoralized judges so much that the effects of that intimidation remain even to this day. In all this, he laid the foundations of the New Order authoritarianism under Suharto.
President Suharto’s regime, by comparison, was seen as subdued and sober, lacking the flashes, gongs and antics of Sukarno. Nevertheless, Suharto restored the economy, laid the foundations for today’s economic boom and Indonesia’s emergence as a country of determining influence for Southeast Asia and its neighbors further afield such as Australia, China and India.
At the same time, there are sufficient historical records to indicate he was a corrupt and ruthless autocrat, implicated, along with others, in the murder of possibly hundreds of thousands of his fellow Indonesians. He amassed a fortune, despoiling the public purse on a staggering scale. And the illicit funds still remain largely in the hands of his family and cronies, with only moderately successful and concentrated efforts taken to retrieve them.
When he resigned, on May 21, 1998, Suharto publicly apologized for his mistakes. His resignation came close on the heels of many deaths and disappearances during the student protests that led to his downfall. His coming to power was accompanied by bloodshed and his ignominious ending likewise. He seemed wedded to conflict and left behind a nation that continues to be embroiled in divisions and outbreaks of violence.
One wonders what was going through Suharto’s mind, if anything, when he referred to his “mistakes” — a mild enough word that implies not only the need for an apology, but also the necessity of backing up the apology with deeds that give the apology credence and value. It is one thing to say you are sorry; it is another to walk away after having plundered the country and keeping what you took.
Of course, Suharto denied ever having been corrupt. Before he died, referring to attempts to regain state funds from him, he said, “It’s all empty talk. Let them accuse me. The fact is that I have never committed corruption.”
At the same time, not everyone’s hands are clean. The communists, the early victims of Suharto’s authoritarian regime, had reason to be contrite.
For years they terrorized whoever they perceived to be political opponents, creating such a culture of fear that when the communists were blamed for the failed September 30 coup in 1965, their erstwhile “victims,” such as Nahdlatul Ulama’s youth movement, Ansor, saw the murders of the generals as the first move in apocalyptic warfare. They then launched pre-emptive attacks, massacring the communists and their alleged sympathizers in Central and Eastern Java and Bali, with the tacit blessing of the military.
Today, the sum of these events, their meaning and impact remain unresolved and Indonesians disagree how to recall, analyze, understand and learn from them. The dark past is simply too painful to recall, and too politically sensitive, and thus the recent calls for reconciliation and rehabilitation sound like a good step toward addressing this problem.
Still, it is doubtful that this kind of reconciliation is what the politicians have in mind. Rather, it seems that their goals tend more toward whitewashing history, forgetting the troubled and traumatic past by burying everything under buzzwords like rehabilitation, and hoping that everything will be swept away by the sands of time.
In the meantime, they can use the larger-than-life figures of both Sukarno and Suharto to attract voters during the upcoming elections.
All this sounds like a continuation of past attitudes. All this sounds like contemporary Indonesia has only learned how to commit the same mistakes of the past rather than renounce them. It hardly sounds like reconciliation, remorse or restitution — but business as usual.
And this would indicate that the reconciliation some are proposing is nothing more than an attempt to legitimize what was unacceptable then and is unacceptable now.
Therefore, maybe it is better to rephrase the question. What kind of truth and reconciliation process does Indonesia need?
--------
SirAnthonyKnown-Bender
4:22pm Apr 13,
2012
It's called "TRUTH and reconciliation". Without the former you don't get the latter, just the usual specious Javanese consensus that masks a sea of injustice. Indonesian figures with the honesty of a Desmond Tutu don't make it to the top table. I well remember about a decade ago some proposal to form an Indonesian Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The generals said, "Well we can't have the word 'truth', just make it a reconciliation commission only." Farcical. It would be hilarious in fact if so much spilt blood hadn't been airbrushed out of official history. If there was justice in this country after 1998's failed "people power revolution" (which left 90% of the New Order regime in tact - the very fact that Golkar still exist shows the manifest failure of any meaningful "reformasi")then certain people would be in jail instead of standing for elections and invoking mass-murdering tyrants as national heroes. Use your vote wisely in 2014 Indonesians: golput, and organize yourselves.
jchay
4:40pm Apr 13,
2012
lightenup
10:05pm Apr 13,
2012
22roles
10:26pm Apr 13,
2012
The method is simple.
Start with a premise or ideology. Find some stats that fit it. Ignore those that don’t. Twist their interpretation until they become convenient, if needs be. Don’t worry about context or perspective. Fling out the whole mess in the hope that the message sticks.
DrDez
6:10am Apr 14,
2012
PS - that's another theft of an article directly lifted without acknowledgment from The Canberra Times - YOU really must troll the world and there is only one kind of person who does that... Link to your latest theft
http://canberratimes.domain.com.au/real-estate-news/blogs/domain-investor-centre-blog/numberwang-or-lies-damned-lies-and-statistics-20120412-1wvfk.html
Yohanes-Sulaiman
3:01pm Apr 14,
2012
@all: Still, the point here is to encourage the debate, that to try to demystify these two undoubtedly great people of Indonesian history, trying to look at history objectively. It is true that truth is also in the eyes of beholders, but I do think that it is still possible to have a measured academic debate on these matters.
enakajah
3:43pm Apr 14,
2012
I also have done some very in depth and detailed investigations on the financial side of both Sukarno and Suharto. It has taken nearly 15 years to get to a position where the confusion and much of the actual facts are coming together.
Undoubtedly both men were titans. Undoubtedly both men had vast failings. But look at the context. More than 350 years of colonial rule. A devastating war and occupation by the Japanese. A vast nation of agrarian virtual slaves to be rendered into a modern nation over night.
In the 60 odd years since then look around and see what has been done in such a short time.
No excuses or apologies for some of the atrocities, just another - "truth".
Good article - provocative
padt
4:40pm Apr 14,
2012
That's the issue - the questions are not going away. Sooner or later they must be answered.
Glad you found the article helpful in this regard. It's an important and sensitive topic. That's why we raised it.
22roles
8:37pm Apr 14,
2012
Oh, and did I forget to mention that Indonesia has the best performing economy in the region.
No, I didn't.
But like I said, Indonesia has the best performing economy in the region or maybe in the world..statisticly i ain't pretender that claims know everything about economy,bordering a con,specially about singapore economy.Stasticly, the courts in singapore are there to maintain democracy not to undermine it but is it really the case? statisticly i can say it is the case in MALAYSIA the courts are there to UNDERMINE democracy.
enakajah
9:43pm Apr 14,
2012
Many will say the atrocities must be answered. More will say that vast amounts of money were plundered and is sifting through the families and cronies and must be returned.
Time heals all and in time this country's scars will heal and in the end it was the massive efforts of both these men that laid the foundation and that is never easy nor clean.
Imagine if the country had been passed over to lesser men at the end of the war. Imagine if the Country had been handed those we have had since '98 but in '48. The time required men of vision and cruel strength. Not the perverted sheep we have today. But then again I am probably completely wrong.... times and priorities have changed.
I have family that were personally associated with and very close to Sukarno. There are some astonishingly far reaching actions that he put in place that account for a number of spectacularly successful results that are still relevant today.
Also during the war the wealth of Europe was being plundered by the Nazi's. The decision was made collectively to move much of it to a Dutch colony that was deemed safe in S.E. Asia. So it was moved physically to Indonesia and into the Javasche Bank accounts in UBS Zurich. In 1965 when Sukarno stood up and declared Indonesia as a sovereign nation, with sovereign laws he also declared all assets held in the name of Indonesia and in its territories belonged to Indonesia. Vast wealth instantly nationalized.
There are many things that are behind the scenes that history does not record. And many it does that are apparent "Truth" but may not be. Victors always get to write the history.
blightyboy
9:14am Apr 15,
2012
PakLiam
10:11am Apr 15,
2012
padt
10:20am Apr 15,
2012
The greatness of a countrty and it's leaders is not marked only by its economic growth - especally an economic growth that does not flow on to the majority of its citizens but only a few.
The greateness of a country and its leaders is how they treat the most vulnerable. And in this, Indonesia is decidedly lacking.
I dont believe what you are saying. You are making excuses.
All the questions do need to be raised and do need to be answered.
Its people who share your mentality who are standing in the way of the real progress Indonesia needs - a development in human rights, clean government, accountable government and the accompanying change in mentality required to achieve that.
Your comments make for sad and disturbing reading. They indicate to me a mentality does not respect basic human dignity and equality.
enakajah
10:56am Apr 15,
2012
Perhaps I was not being clear. I agree entirely that we cannot blame today on yesterday rather, despite yesterday the country has achieved an enormous amount. As have others in 60 years. This is why I am not sure that questions posed in this article need to be raised and/or answered.
Or perhaps you were responding to my first post as the second and third took some time to get posted due to the weekend.
In the end BB I agree . A lot has been achieved in 60 years in many countries and Indonesia is one of them and as I think I said clearly, I have a more positive view of the two men's achievements and do not not necessarily agree with the writers for exactly the reasons you have mentioned. Look forward not back.
enakajah
11:11am Apr 15,
2012
It goes into excruciating detail of how the VOC ran the entire country as a production house with little or no interest in anything other than extracting the maximum profit for the leaste investment. Very little changed between that time to when the VOC returned and the second world war.
After the war the country had to recover from the devastation and at the same time try to catch up on the rest of the world in an industrial manner and deal with Independence after so long without any control or people educated or experienced in running a country.
Vastly different from others devastated by the war and the success to date is speaks for itself. That is not blaming the past but a credit to the successes despite it.
DrDez
1:24pm Apr 15,
2012
22roles
2:27pm Apr 15,
2012
DrDez
3:10pm Apr 15,
2012
22roles
3:43pm Apr 15,
2012
Comello
4:03pm Apr 15,
2012
@enakajah
In 1810, the VOC had been out of existence for more than 10 years due to its bankruptcy. So the VOC did not 'run' anything, did not 'return' to do so, and certainly had not run 'the whole country', as most of what is now Indonesia was still under indigenous rule - the '350 years..' Sukarno/Suharto meme is historical fiction and post-colonial propaganda necessary for nation-building.
Most colonies were run as cheap production house/consumer markets for home country products.
Ans as for 'almost completely agrarian without industry': which former colonies were thriving industries before independence?
I guess any invading nation can write disparaging books about their colonial competitors. What if British India, Caribbean sugar plantations, Autralia's East Coast or Zulu S-Africa were 'liberated' by the next European colonizer?
19th century colonialism and mercantilism before that were bad all around for the suppressed peoples, don't make Indonesia its 'special case' all the time.
Jubal.Harshaw
4:25pm Apr 15,
2012
A more widely used benchmark is 10,000 per day, which would put over 80 million Indonesians below the poverty line.
But of course, we all know that the real cost of living is even higher, and that puts Dr. Dez's estimate of 100 million a tad on the low side.
All this while elite thieves rob the country blind to feather their own nests, and if caught, get to keep their stolen millions.
Surely you can not continue to be so blind to the plight of your fellow countrymen, 22roles? Or maybe you can ...
DrDez
4:32pm Apr 15,
2012
what do you understand by poverty???
madrotter
4:38pm Apr 15,
2012
enakajah
4:52pm Apr 15,
2012
PADT, I did not say my family benefited in any way, I mentioned only that some of the actions Sukarno took in the early 50's and 60's have echoes still today.
Neither did I say the past should be whitewashed. I think you are trying to read into my position what is not there.
I merely do not necessarily agree that answering questions you pose are going to insure what I agree with you is necessary. Clean and transparent government, adherence to human rights and the dignity of the vulnerable.
I work in those specific fields and the most important manner in which to get all of those points instituted is progress and make changes in those institutions now and for the future.
Looking back and trying to get answers from people no longer involved does not necessarily install those absolutely necessary issues into a government system today.
Much of my professional career is spent working with civil society instituting your exact points. What do you do other than write or voice an opinion?
PADT, in order to institue the manner in which the country and it's leaders treat the vulnerable, one has to get inside and work on institutional strengthening and capacity building. These are areas I work in day to day. So rather than standing in the way I am actively working with a variety of donors and institutions to install those very changes you talk about.
To achieve anything the systems need to be altered forward looking. The past has happened. Now what is required is to change and in all the work I have done over the years, including involvement in truth and reconciliation councils, nothing systematic has been achieved by answering the questions you pose. The way to insure the protection of vulnerable, clean transparent government and all that you would hope for is to train, build capacity and work and make change happen.
I am sorry if you seem to think we have opposing views. I work to achieve exactly what you wish to see as well. Calling me a liar is not polite nor lucid.
padt
5:33pm Apr 15,
2012
I did not call you a liar.
I said I do not believe what you say. Just as one may say that to a person who holds certain beliefs or opinions that one disagrees with - I simply do not believe or hold them myself. That is not calling you a liar or accusing you of concealing the truth.
justapasserby
6:11pm Apr 15,
2012
enakajah
6:48pm Apr 15,
2012
As to the British Colonies. You are absolutely correct. I agree but this still does not detract from the progress that this country has made in such a relatively short period of time. And since this article is about Indonesia why should I not make the case to emphasize the successes?
PADT apology accepted. I may also have over reacted to your saying you do not believe me. However had you worded it differently in the same posting perhaps I might not have gone off like a $2 rocket.
Comello, Regardless of the VOC being out of business, they did set up the systems and it is acknowledge that is was one of the most repressive. I suggest you buy the book. It is actually written by a reporter not an author published in sections over a period of time. It is really more of a reference book and the details are excruciating and immensely boring but it is clear insight into the situation that the country was left in at independence. But yes as I mentioned before Victors write the history and your points are well enough taken.
In the end I and I think all of us want the successes of this country viewed on a more positive light and dwell on those rather than always the negative. There are monumental problems of course but there have and are juts as monumental successes.
DrDez
7:06pm Apr 15,
2012
I also dont recall RI being under communist rule BTW ..
22roles
7:42pm Apr 15,
2012
justapasserby
8:04pm Apr 15,
2012
As for these recurring claims that Indonesia wasnt really colonized for 350 years, well that's just semantic argument by colonial supporters who would like to white wash their history. For example, the Sultanate of Yogyakarta was on paper an independent country right until 1945.. but in reality they had to ask for Dutch permission to increase the height of their palace wall!. Is this what you mean by independent native rulers? other example.. Ternate was "independent" as a protectorate of VOC.. but we all know what a protectorate imply. I find it quite weird that the Dutch are quick to condemn people who belittle their 4 years plight under germany but conveniently forget what they themself were doing in Indonesia.
Yohanes-Sulaiman
10:36am Apr 16,
2012
I don't have grudges against President Sukarno and Suharto -- in fact, I agree with most of Enakajah's points on Suharto's contributions. On Sukarno, I actually to some degree with your assertions of him playing a major role in Indonesian independence.
What I dislike is the fact that presently people tend to manipulate the history, whitewashing the errors of the past for present political gains without carefully study the errors of the past. History is not black and white, and to praise both Sukarno and Suharto uncritically will create this stupid cult of leaders not unlike North Korea or other Socialist/communist countries and that will bring down the country.
I agree, don't dwell too much on the past, but at the same time don't whitewash it.
Valkyrie
10:49am Apr 16,
2012
Thank you! I am enjoying the various intellectual and informative exchanges.
I remember well Shakespeare's Julius Caesar when Mark Antony made his speech at Caesar's funeral.
"Friends, Romans and countrymen ........
the evil that men do live after them, The good is interred with their bones."
I am especially referring to the two Ss.
padt
11:38am Apr 16,
2012
It would be an understatement to say that Indonesians like to celebrate their superiority and victories whenever they have the chance. Just go to any football match and observe.
Question: Why don't Indonesians 'celebrate' the events of 1965/6 - the 'triumph' over the 'forces of evil' - why aren't these events - the deaths of opponents - whatever the number - heralded as epic events in a proud and open history? Why instead, when those events are mentioned, they are hushed up, avoided, the subject changed - and not talked about, let alone celebrated as a symbol of national pride - unless there is perhaps an element of shame, perhaps even guilt - certainly ambiguity - connected with them?
DrDez
11:52am Apr 16,
2012
22roles
2:00pm Apr 17,
2012
No comments:
Post a Comment