Indonesia Needs to Exorcise the Ghosts Of Sukarno and Suharto to Move On

---
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

Yes, I agree without truth there won't be any reconciliation. However, how will we end up with the real truth, when nobody even respects the truth or whoever has the truth but instead hide behind pretty lies and denial mentality? Truth is not part of our identity, it is too cheap to fight for. So here we are again without truth, and therefore no reconciliation.

lightenup

10:05pm Apr 13, 2012

I agree with SirAnthony here. Reconciliation and pardoning someone cannot be fulfilled without presenting nothing but the truth about the person. Face it, but even some parts which the writer here wrote regarding Sukarno's and Suharto's so-called 'national sins' are contestable at best. Well, I know that no humans are perfect, but that doesn't mean that they don't deserve to be known based on truth only.

22roles

10:26pm Apr 13, 2012

Statistics. The ‘‘impartial’’ evidence — the convincer — that backs every discussion. The creative use of which can make any position defensible, every argument rational.

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

yes 22 thats what you do all the time.. except often you leave out the statistics

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

@lightenup: care to enlighten me which part(s) are contestable? I would love to know. I rely on several sources, notably a great work by Sebastiaan Pompe on the Indonesian Supreme Court (http://www.amazon.com/The-Indonesian-Supreme-Court-Institutional/dp/0877277389) and as usual, books by Kahin and Dan Lev that describes the collapse of Indonesian democracy in 1950s.

@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

Many people here lived through a great deal of the Suharto days. I know I did and I have a very different view from a couple of posters here. Mine being a great deal more positive having been involved directly in a great many of the infrastructure projects that built what we have today.

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

enakajah - as you say - the purpose of this article was to provoke thought - thinking - discussion - calm and lucid investigation and to raise questions that need to be answered because the questions are hanging in the air and are simply not going to go away.

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

For those anti indonesia whingers and lack of achievements , indonesia is doing ok, sky is nowhere near falling in.

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

I am not so sure that all the questions do need to be raised and/or answered. Acceptance of the fact that the nation has grown and is on a track paved by the positive achievements of these two men is perhaps enough.

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

enakajah - do also look at what many nations have achieved over the past 60 years. After the second World war many countries were in tatters, bankrupt and broken. Look around and compare. Indonesia cannot

PakLiam

10:11am Apr 15, 2012

Yes, 22, that paragraph is more like your usual writing, rather than the plagiarised piece that DrDez called you on.

padt

10:20am Apr 15, 2012

enakajah, your attitude of whitewashing the past because your family benefited from it is what will make the atrocities and theft of the past a present and future reality.

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

BB certainly the whole of Europe was in tatters and totally destroyed, as was Japan but how many of the nations had been colonized for 350 years before that and almost completely agrarian without industry?

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

Perhaps off topic but relevant to my position, an idea may be to read the book called "the Conquest of Java". It is an account of what the British found when they arrived here to fight the French, who briefly took over when they colonized Holland.

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

22... The best performing economy and yet 100 million in poverty... well done

22roles

2:27pm Apr 15, 2012

Explain to me how you calculate poverty ? Don't quote here n there, i want direct from your understanding.

DrDez

3:10pm Apr 15, 2012

100 m 22 - do your own research

22roles

3:43pm Apr 15, 2012

Didn't u understand when I said don't quote, I want ur understanding how u came up with that poverty numbers? Got that?

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

@22 The number of poor in Indonesia is purely dependent on the government's chosen definition of poverty and includes the cash required to afford a diet of 2,100 calories a day, or 152,847 rupiah per month. No wonder the government can proudly boast that only 20% of people live in poverty.

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

$2 a day 22... I have posted a longer response but it seems to have gone astray

what do you understand by poverty???

madrotter

4:38pm Apr 15, 2012

The scum always rises to the top....

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

enakajah - I apologise unreservedly for presuming your family personally benefited from the Sukarno regime. I misunderstood what you said, but that is no excuse.

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

Without sukarno we will be still a Dutch colony, albeit probably with some less negative sounding label, having potrait of Queen Wilhemina instead of SBY on the walls, and with most of the prestigious government and corporate position will stil be filled by white dutchmen.Without Suharto, we will still be a Communist country, probaby we will still have an aidit potrait on the wall today as an "External President".. and his son will be the current "Great Comrade".. cant we all be thankful for all of these and quit saying bad things about the dead?

enakajah

6:48pm Apr 15, 2012

Comello, Points taken. I slipped VOC in rather than putting the nationality in for the sake of being diplomatic. The agrarian side I was referring to BB's comment on the 60 years aspect. Prior to the War the nations that were destroyed were mainly European and industrialized before destruction. Indonesia was not. My point there is that the country has come a very long way and should be proud of it.

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

jpb - The excesses by both men should be recognized and criticized so we never fall again into the same trap, just ignoring them or making silly comments is I am afraid an Indonesian trademark.

I also dont recall RI being under communist rule BTW ..

22roles

7:42pm Apr 15, 2012

An ‘evidence base’ does not neccesarily lead to a scientific theory,it can lead to many conclusions.your logic fail for poverty, as my dog is white and my cat is white, therefore, my dog is my cat.

justapasserby

8:04pm Apr 15, 2012

we were about to be having our first communist majority parliament and communist government, had the PKI patiently wait for the next election and did not jump the gun with the 1965 coup. They were already the largest and the most organized political party at that time.

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

@JPB: No, there would not have been any next election, because that's what Sukarno and other Indonesian elites tried to avoid -- the victory of the PKI -- by having the Presidential Decree of 1959, which virtually suspended the democracy.

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

Gentlemen....

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

I put a question to commentators here.

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

padt - because when we cut all the crap it was a state sponsored genocide

22roles

2:00pm Apr 17, 2012

state sponsored genocide only to those can't see beyond the news or bordering a con

Nasrep, Tommy and the Smiling General

Not sure what else to add.

----

Nasrep, Tommy and the Smiling General

Yohanes Sulaiman & Phillip Turnbull | February 09, 2012

Hoping to bypass the government’s verification process for new political parties, the National Republic Party last week decided to merge with the struggling Ummah Conscience Party, which participated in the 2009 elections and can run again in 2014. As a result, the new party, led by Hutomo “Tommy” Mandala Putra, the son of Indonesia’s former presidential strongman Suharto, can now throw its hat in the ring, too.

The National Republic Party, known as Nasrep, has indicated that it will base its platform on the policies espoused by Suharto, who was ousted by popular dissent in 1998 and died in 2008. By doing this, Tommy hopes to tap into the popular discontent of people who are fed up with the scandals under President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and the self-enriching House of Representatives. Many wish to return to what they perceive as the more stable times of Suharto.

So is Tommy asking us to believe that the best way forward is a few steps back?

For 32 years, Suharto ruled Indonesia by sheer force, and his achievements were staggering. He pushed Indonesia ahead economically, especially by developing energy resources and mining, and he can be credited with laying the foundations for unprecedented economic growth today. One can only wonder what would have happened had he also recognized that economic growth must be accompanied by political reforms.

During Suharto’s reign, Indonesia experienced relative peace among its highly diverse religious, cultural and ethnic groups. Backed by the military, Suharto ruled from a centralized stronghold with little real diffused authority in the provinces. Corruption, cronyism and nepotism of course existed but were not widely dispersed.

However, Indonesia under Suharto experienced a not-so-benign patrimonial tyranny that kept the country reasonably stable only because of the overly docile nature of the average Indonesian. Whatever benefits Suharto brought, the price in terms of human rights abuses and a reign of terror was simply too high.

Suharto’s reputation will be forever tarnished by charges that he looked after his family more than the interests of the country. The problem is that this mentality continues to persist today in some circles. Like Suharto, many politicians still stand in the way of political reform, while a tyranny of money politics spreads corruption into practically every aspect of public life..

But times have also changed, and people are not as docile as they were under Suharto’s hard-handed reign. While there is little threat that the country will disintegrate with seceding provinces, despite the problems in Papua, there is another possibility: Indonesia could face disintegration in the sense that its people, once united by tolerance, may fall apart. The present situation contains the seeds of potential social and political upheaval on a massive scale. Suharto kept things in check, but governments since have not been able to do so.

Look at the closure of the GKI Yasmin church in Bogor. In a recent meeting between Yudhoyono and religious leaders from Papua, when the president promised to solve the problems in the province, the Rev. Socratez Sofyan Yoman asked: “How can you solve the problems in Papua, which is located thousands of kilometers [from Jakarta], while there is a very urgent matter that also requires your attention just 15 kilometers from here — the GKI Yasmin case?”

Yudhoyono has said he does not have the power to do anything about the Bogor situation, which he has left for regional authorities. Suharto would have smiled at this response — and done something.

At the same time, like some politicians today, Suharto was tragically adverse to political change, and this proved to be his undoing. He did not prepare to move on and let someone else have a go. Perhaps he thought, as no doubt many of his subjects did, that no one wanted him to go. It was a rude shock when he found out in 1998 that he had been wrong.

Nothing was in place to replace the dictator, whose downfall led to chaos, mayhem and murder, and the damage remains today. Years of living under Suharto has left the political class largely infantile and unable to shoulder responsibility, leading the late President Abdurrahman “Gus Dur” Wahid to complain that Indonesian politicians behaved like kindergarteners.

So what will Tommy do? Will he learn from his father’s mistakes? Will he make a strong leader? Will his Nasrep Party understand what few do, that the first duty of a politician is to take a form of responsibility that outweighs family ties, personal monetary gain and popularity?

Tommy’s track record to date does not indicate that he fully understands this role. Ten years ago, he was jailed for ordering the murder of a Supreme Court judge who had convicted him of fraud in 2000. That fraud conviction was overturned and he was freed after serving four years, but since leaving prison, what has he done for the country?

There is no doubt that as Tommy’s party seeks the limelight, we can expect more nostalgia for the “good” old days of the New Order. But should that translate into a desire for a return to Suharto’s style of government? It’s one thing to idealize the past, but what if we conveniently forget that Suharto was responsible for serious crimes against humanity and plundering Indonesia’s wealth?

At the time of Suharto’s death, Yudhoyono spoke of the former dictator as a national hero, asking delegates at an international conference on corruption to acknowledge his passing with a minute of silence. The ironic act indicates that perhaps the nation is not yet able to deal with the Suharto experience.

With the rise of Tommy’s party, maybe it is time for Indonesia to definitively decide whether Suharto’s regime was good for Indonesia. Suharto to some extent achieved a tolerant, diversified Indonesia, but at the end of the day, he did not make the country a better place. On the contrary, his legacy has provided a pattern for today’s political shortcomings. Tommy’s party needs to recognize this if it is to contribute to a better Indonesia.


----

trueblue

1:02pm Feb 9, 2012

Yohanes/Turnbull

Gents, you ask a very relevant question with a proposition that for Indonesia to move forward, it needs to take a few steps back. A simple glance in the political rear vision mirror indicates that Indonesia needs to put the indicators on and have them blinking right. Any further centre lane, or heaven forbid left lane politics is old news. The experimenting politics to date have given a credible 6.5%GDP, but the spread of wealth and employment, and minimum wages leave a country with an imbalance. May I suggest that NRP, by virtue of consolidation of political parties is a step in the right direction of reducing the the number of parties, and therefore enabling the concepts of government, opposition, coalitions, to be more identifiable to the voter. I have posted in previous weeks the concepts of strong leadership, and examples to debate. As a non voter this is not an endorsement of the NRP, but a plea to get it right at the next election. My wife thinks when she votes

Yohanes-Sulaiman

8:45am Feb 10, 2012

@Trueblue: Thank you for your comments.

I actually agree with more consolidation of Indonesian political parties. First of all, it will reduce confusion on the ballot boxes, second, most of the extremists' parties, including the porn-obsessed party (you know who) would keep losing their share of votes, as the political parties become more and more consolidated. This current system actually rewards the extremist parties for their extremism as even a small number of votes allow them to retain their seats. Should they have to integrate to a much larger parties, they have to be more moderate to attract votes all over the place.

Still, I doubt if NRP's acquisition is a trend toward responsible party system. Rather it is simply bypassing the party-stress test and take the shortcut to the election, which kinda indicates what kind of party they'd be should they get elected.

Good Old Suharto?

This article is published a few days after Suharto's birthday, simply arguing that it is not a good idea to see the past through rose-tinted glasses. Facing economic and political difficulties, it is easy to idealize the past, but the past itself may not be as beautiful as we thought.


------
The Thinker: Good Old Suharto?
Yohanes Sulaiman | June 15, 2011

The debate on the legacy of Suharto and the New Order began immediately after his fall in May 1998.

Many people, notably those who felt the repressive hands of the regime, argued that the New Order was a failure, rife with nepotism and human rights violations. The loss of East Timor was the crown jewel on the top of the effigy of the failed idol of the New Order.

Reformasi and the new Indonesian democracy is supposed to derive its legitimacy from the idea that rule by the people will avoid the mistakes of the New Order and clean up all its messes. Having learned that Suharto’s strongman system didn’t work, democracy is supposed to be the power that saves the nation.

Therefore it was a terrible shock when Indobarometer dropped a bombshell last month in announcing that, based on a recent poll, Suharto beat other Indonesian presidents in terms of popularity by a large margin. The same survey also noted that 41 percent of the survey’s respondents believed that their lives were better under the New Order.

In short, 13 years after the fall of Suharto many people are longing for the good old days of the New Order. Not surprisingly, the findings caused a firestorm with experts, academics, politicians and talking heads questioning the methodology and political motivations behind the survey.

Regardless of the motivation, there is growing nostalgia for the New Order among Indonesians. This phenomenon of fondly recalling a fallen regime is not unique to Indonesia; the former states of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and East Germany, as well as Poland, have seen the same.

What’s important to note is that people are not nostalgic for the real past. Rather they are attracted to an idealized past — a constructed past that never existed in the first place, when the government was believed to be all-wise and all-benevolent, and everything was believed to be orderly.

Considering that today people are fed a steady diet of bad news, it is no wonder that people are longing for the days when everything seemed to be under control. But this is a mirage; the erstwhile government established order by sweeping everything under the rug and occasionally using extra-judicial measures.

The reason why today’s world is seemingly so chaotic is because there is so much openness, so much information swirling around, exposing all the misconduct. At the same time, the usually protected politicians today live under the glare of the spotlight, leading to many embarrassing exposes.

The government itself is not prepared to run a democracy. Instead of controlling and telling media what to write, it can only provide information. Yet the government doesn’t have well-developed media relations personnel. Not surprisingly, people are complaining about the lack of leadership.

It is important not to dismiss the Indobarometer survey as a walk down fantasy lane. The problem with such nostalgic feelings is that it creates unrealistic expectations of the current and future government — expectations that no government will ever be able to match.

Instead, both Suharto and the New Order must be humanized, to be seen and evaluated just as a normal human being with all their strength and weaknesses.

It is unfair to simply dismiss all these achievements of the New Order. Regardless of someone’s opinion on Suharto, it cannot be denied that he was rightfully a state hero, as he contributed much to national development. It is undeniable that the New Order regime managed to lift tens of millions of Indonesians from the jaws of poverty while achieving almost full literacy and various other social achievements in just a few decades.

On the other hand, the New Order’s many abuses cannot be denied. Corruption and nepotism were rife within the bureaucracy. Personal connections and corruptions made a mockery of the rule of law. The norms of professionalism were decimated in universities, judiciaries, the armed forces and other organizations that might potentially generate political problems, as Suharto personally vetted every single candidate for promotion. Political censorship and human rights abuses were commonplace. Those faults could not be simply swept away under the rug and ignored.

Such accomplishments and weaknesses of Suharto and the New Order regime must be treated fairly and mentioned in our attempts to understand the New Order. Therefore, in a belated celebration of Suharto’s birthday last week, let us hope that this and future generation of Indonesian leaders may learn the “human” Suharto and avoid his mistakes.