Dipo Alam’s quixotic adventure is a bad war

This is a really amusing and memorable article for me. On one hand, this article receives the "Editor Choice" attribution from the Jakarta Post and highly regarded. On the other hand, this article becomes the last article I wrote for the Jakarta Post.

Up until the Tunisian article, I was not really serious in writing for newspapers. I was busy with my works and couldn't concentrate on writing. Then, I had a probably the most idiotic idea ever thought: I decided that I needed to "fix" my CV by publishing as many articles as possible in newspapers.

I sent two different articles to the Jakarta Post and the Jakarta Globe. I was planning to send articles on Indonesian domestic politics to the Post while sending articles on foreign affairs and economy to the Globe. The Jakarta Post received this article and a few days later, the Jakarta Globe received another article titled "Southeast Asia's Sometimes Association." I believed I sent the Post this article on Monday and sent the Globe the article on Wednesday.

I consider both articles as equally good. I never send anything I consider sub-standard or horrid because I figure that it will backfire and hurt my reputation anyhow. In case that an article got rejected, even though I might disagree with the reason (most likely due to the time delay in publication, making the issue moot, which the Jakarta Post is quite notorious for doing so), I threw it to the recycle bin and delete it forever. I lost so many ideas this way, but I have to do that to keep my writings fresh.

Anyway, both articles were published without a hitch.

A week later, I sent two pieces again to the Jakarta Post and the Jakarta Globe. This time, the Jakarta Post received what I considered as one of the best articles I've ever written, which was an argument in support for an overhaul of Indonesian electorate system. I sent the draft beforehand to my dear former advisor, Bill Liddle, who loved the piece. The Jakarta Globe received a decent article titled "Feeding the Indonesian Private Sector."

The Jakarta Globe immediately published the piece. The Post, however, as some of you may suspect, sent me this:

Thank you very much for your worthy contribution. However we decided that we would no longer publish articles from writers who also contribute to The Jakarta Globe. Thank you for your understanding.

  Kind regards,
  Dwi Atmanta

Well, I tried to send them some emails, asking them to clarify this policy, since that was the first time I've ever heard that, and without avail. They never replied nor sent any acknowledgements. I did know that there were some writers who got blacklisted for what editors would call as "article shopping," meaning sending an article to several newspapers at once. That was the first time I've heard that you could be banned for sending different articles to different newspapers.

Since then, I've heard from many writers about this policy, that they could only "go back" to the Jakarta Post after they agreed to never ever write for the Jakarta Globe.

Yet in retrospect, I didn't regret it. I think sending that piece to the Jakarta Globe was probably the best action I had done because since then I've had a really great relationship with the Jakarta Globe and Mr. Ben Otto, its editor.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dipo Alam’s quixotic adventure is a bad war

Yohanes Sulaiman, Jakarta | Thu, 03/03/2011 11:30 AM

In the United States there’s something called “Greener’s Law”, which tells us to “never pick a fight with a man who buys his ink by the barrel.” Dipo Alam broke this law and found himself, to his dismay, in a fine mess.

Fighting against Media Indonesia and TVOne is vastly different to fighting against Yogyakarta Sultan Sri Hamengkubuwono X over the latter’s remarks that Indonesia might experience a Tunisian-  or Egyptian-style revolution — or against the religious leaders who previously declared that the government had lied to the people.

In both Hamengkubuwono’s and religious leaders’ cases, Dipo was challenging their interpretations of current events in the national media, which is his right as a government official and as a citizen protected by the Constitution.

Dipo picked a wholly different fight in his squabble with Media Indonesia and TVOne. Had he only complained about a lack of balance and left the threat of a boycott out of his rants, he might have actually gained followers. President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono is still very popular and people are aware that many newspapers in Indonesia are sensational, lacking in balance and often treat the President unfairly.

In calling for a boycott of Media Indonesia, Metro TV and TVOne, however, the debate shifted. If Dipo was simply a regular citizen, his call for boycott would have been fine, because he was expressing his rights as a citizen. The government might or might not agree with his call. One thing is clear: As a regular citizen, Dipo would not be able to influence the process.

In this case, because of Dipo’s role as a high-ranking government official, he supposedly has the power to impose a boycott. His actions might become political and be considered censorship to maximize his political gains. At the same time his actions might be considered as an attempt to blackmail the media and thus, constitute an abuse of power.

Moreover, journalists from rival companies will not simply sit aside and laud the coming boycott of their powerful competitors. Instead, they see this as a creeping threat to the freedom of press. If today Dipo is able to shut off both outlets, what will prevent him from going after other, much weaker and less powerful newspapers?

What will prevent Dipo, flush from his victories, from boycotting The Jakarta Post, The Jakarta Globe, Kompas, Suara Pembaruan, Sinar Harapan, Rakyat Merdeka, Jawa Pos, Viva News, detik.com, and various other outlets which might manage, either intentionally or unintentionally, to rouse the presidential ire?

For Dipo, the issue is a perceived lack of fairness and balance in media coverage of the President.

For the press, however, it is a fight for survival. It is a fight to establish that people may criticize the media and demand retractions as long as it doesn’t interfere with the cherished freedom of the press.

Not surprisingly, Dipo found himself isolated in this debate. In addition, fighting the media in a democracy, especially on a matter as grave as the freedom of press, is stupid. Like it or not, the press can set the agenda, frame an issue, and make sure that the public understands the debate simply by focusing on this issue like a laser beam and repeating the process over and over again.

Dipo, however, has to rely on the media that he bashed and threatened to get his message across to the public. It is simply a bad war to wage. Most of the experienced ministers in the Cabinet understand this, and thus they prefer to stay away from the conflict.

The only person that actually can fight the media is the President. Yudhoyono commands the bully pulpit, a position from which he can set the agenda. Still, when the debate is framed this way, even Yudhoyono might receive a lot of flak.

The call for a boycott, especially from a high government official, is not wise. Rather than helping Yudhoyono set the record clear what Dipo did was to create distractions for President’s agenda.

Worse, by the end of the day, the buck stops on Yudhoyono’s desk, and he will be blamed for sending or at least allowing Dipo to engage in this quixotic crusade. He will be accused of attempting to rollback the freedom of press in Indonesia, and the entire affair will end up hurting his reputation.

At the same time, the media that Dipo blamed became martyrs and gained a larger audience through this confrontation. This is truly a war that Dipo would have been better off avoiding.

-------

asmartrock | Tue, 08/03/2011 - 14:03pm

This is from the guy who said that it's not the people's money. It's the government's. Taxes are the people’s money, the national treasury is the people’s money, the money that public officials use is the people’s money.

Regardless of the media's political bias, he, as the representative mouthpiece of the President, should take caution before unilaterally implementing a policy that only he apparently knows. It isn't quixotic. It's idiotic. If he insists on acting as such, then, by all means, he should fairly be treated as one.

Why ‘Tunisian revolution’ won’t reach Indonesia

This article was written in response to the comments of so many political elites in Indonesia, who easily throw around the idea of "Tunisian Revolution" in Indonesia.  Careful reader of this article will find the seeds of my arguments that I will elaborate in my later blog post, notably on the importance of fragmented political elites in order to push for a successful transfer of power. I am very careful here in not using the term "democratic transition," since we are not even sure whether the liberal democratic camp will end up winning in every single state that experienced upheaval.

YS
----

Why ‘Tunisian revolution’ won’t reach Indonesia

Yohanes Sulaiman, Jakarta | Thu, 02/17/2011 10:28 AM

The Tunisian revolution is an attractive phenomenon because it provides a great story about how the poor and the weak, under constant and heavy pressures from an authoritarian regime, finally snapped and managed to overthrow the dictatorship.

It is basically a template to the Internet-based social movement in the 21st century, replacing the old religious or labor-based mass movements that are either co-opted or crippled by the heavy hands of state.

“The Tunisian model” is also appealing because it transcends the usual social cleavages that prevent opposition from uniting under one banner. By using Facebook and Twitter, activists were able to summon people from diverse backgrounds, political views, etc., united only by their disgust with economic hardship and the excesses of the government.

Witness the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, which did not do anything until the protest was at full steam when it agreed to join the movement. It stressed that the nature of the protest remained independent and secular and that the Muslim Brotherhood was just another participant, not the organizer of the protest.

The Tunisian model provides the impetus, the driving force, for the protest movement to emerge and to create groups to pressure the undemocratic regimes all over the Middle East. Basically, the poor had enough with the government’s wanton abuse of power and demanded justice. Not surprisingly, both Yogyakarta Sultan Hamengkubuwono X and former vice president Jusuf Kalla warned that Indonesia might experience a “Tunisian revolution”.

Such assertion, however, is incorrect due to several important factors. Most importantly, the problem with the Tunisian model is that it does not have the ability to create an institution that will be able to sustain the movement over the long run should the government decide to stall or to resist.

“Democracy provides an outlet so that popular outrage can be channeled through legitimate means.”

While it is true that through electoral manipulations, the police force and the state apparatus, Ben Ali was able to rule Tunisia for decades, but he did not have a strong organization that he could rely on when things turned violent. It is agreed that the Tunisian Army’s unwillingness to support the government was the final nail in Ben Ali’s coffin.

Egypt, however, is a different story. While there has been discontent within the Egyptian bureaucracy and elites regarding the longevity of Mubarak’s rule and his desire to install his son as his successor, the army had the interest to keep the Egyptian government from collapsing.

Unlike in Tunisia, the Egyptian army founded the government. The army considers itself as a bulwark against what it senses as national threats, notably the Muslim Brotherhood. While the rank and file may agree with the protesters’ demands to overthrow Mubarak, the army and protesters parted ways as soon as Mubarak left office. The protesters wanted to completely overhaul the state. The army, on the other hand, was wary of anarchy and radical Islamism (regardless of whether it is real or imagined) and wanted to proceed slowly.

Conversely, protests fizzled in Yemen, Jordan and Syria. While it can be argued that government concessions may be a factor, or they are waiting for the events in Egypt to play out, it can’t be denied that the three government’s decisions not to violently repress the protests helped buy breathing space for these administrations.

The political elites were also mostly united, strengthening the hands of the governments. While there will be protests inspired by the Tunisian revolution, the euphoria will soon end and without the government adding fuel to the fire and it will not reach the intensity of either Egypt or Tunisia.

The protest movement, however, will not spread to Indonesia, regardless of the assertions of Kalla and Hamengkubuwono X. Even though people are fed up with corruption, government mishandling of the economy, religious violence and rising food prices, there is simply no sense of stagnation and helplessness that is evident in the protests in the Middle East.

In the Middle East, the continuing domination of the dictatorships of Ben Ali and Mubarak and the belief that both of them would remain on top, or in the Mubarak case, would be succeeded by his despised son, had fueled the demonstrations.

In Indonesia, however, it is agreed that President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, regardless of his popularity, will step down and can no longer run in the 2014 election. There is no overt attempt to change the rule of law in favor of SBY or anyone in his family.

In other words, people actually have a chance to choose a leader that they want, regardless how talented or how useless the leader is. Furthermore, there is no law or regulation that prohibits or prevents any legitimate protest movement or political party to oppose any official policy.

Basically, there is simply no focus of ire and no ultimate target that can sustain the fury of the protesters in the long run.

Not surprisingly, protests in Indonesia after Reformasi were usually short and sporadic.

In a nutshell, democracy provides an outlet so that popular outrage can be channeled through legitimate means. Such an outlet was missing in both Tunisia and Egypt. As a result, when people decided that they had enough and organized to launch a massive protest movement, such movements could destabilize the regime, especially when the elite within the regime were not strongly united behind the leader. This same mechanism also brought down president Soeharto in 1998.

Today, however, such a movement will not materialize in Indonesia because of the safety valve called democracy.

Could the Greek tragedy happen here?

 

Nothing controversial here, though I think some people appropriated the title and quoted this once in a while.

YS

------

Could the Greek tragedy happen here ?

Yohanes Sulaiman, Jakarta | Mon, 05/10/2010 1:00 PM

On May 1, 2010, The New York Times published an analysis of a country where "ducking taxes is part of a broader culture of bribery and corruption that is deeply entrenched . and bribing government officials to grease the wheels of bureaucracy is so standard that people know the rates."

Sounds familiar? Unfortunately yes. While the article is discussing the root causes for the economic problems facing Greece, these descriptions can also be applied to Indonesia, where we have a similar or probably even worse culture of bribery and corruption.

The sudden collapse of the Greek economy took everyone by surprise. Greece had experienced healthy economic growth in the 1990s. The economy was doing so well that the country was accepted into the Euro bloc in 2001.

Behind the economic growth, however, corruption remains rampant. In fact, according to Transparency International's 2009 report, Greece is ranked 71 out of 180 countries in term of perceived level of public-sector corruption (while Indonesia is ranked 111).

Corruption had taken a huge chunk of Greece's economic growth. The Brooking Institutes found that corruption cost at least 8 percent of Greece's annual GDP or around US$27 billion annually, leading to a budget deficit. Apparently, without corruption, Greece actually could have enjoyed budget surpluses in the past decade (Wall Street Journal , April 15, 2010).

At this point, Greece is facing a fight for its survival. Investors' confidence is at the all time low, thanks to the Greek government's manipulation of its economic statistics and its reluctance to swallow the bitter pills of economic reforms, the fear that Greece may default on its bonds, and the bitter fact that only reluctantly and slowly both Berlin and Paris are coming to help. Bailing out Greece is simply unpopular in Germany and politically toxic.

To make the situation worse, Greece is a part of the Euro bloc. This means that Greece cannot devalue its currency, making exports cheap, and in turn stimulating its economy.

Instead, Greece can only slash its spending and improve its tax collections. The former is always politically unpopular due to a massive cut in salaries and perks for everyone. Not surprisingly, the announcement led to widespread protests. The latter is very difficult due to a deeply entrenched culture of bribery and corruption.
At the time when the country is in the crisis, the economy is collapsing, and the government is in turmoil, corruption is the only thing that stands between Greece and its survival. Corruption slowly strangles Greece's economic miracle and now prevents Greece's economic rescue. Talk about tragedy.

So, can "the Greek Tragedy" happen in Indonesia? Actually, back in 1997-8 Indonesia once had a brush with the perils currently facing Greece, when the Asian economic crisis shattered investors' confidence toward the economies of the region. Add a dash of political uncertainties thanks to president Soeharto's illness and succession crisis, and you had the perfect storm of both political and economic collapse.

While today's condition is vastly different, thanks to democratization and reformation of Indonesian politics, the fundamentals remain weak as corruption remains entrenched in the bureaucracy.

The main difference between today's Indonesia and Greece lies in investors' confidence. At this point, investors' confidence in Indonesia remains high, thanks to Indonesia's political stability and the government's decent management of the economy. Indonesia is also helped by China's growing appetite for Indonesia's raw materials to fuel its economic boom. Thus, Indonesia will see decent economic growth for the next few years.

Still, parties will always end. China's economic engine may one day splutter. Indonesia may experience political instability. Investors may be spooked and leave the region in droves should they sniff any whiff of impending political or economic disaster looming over the horizon.

At that time, should corruption, inefficiency, and waste remains high, Indonesia may see a replay of "the Greek Tragedy". Don't expect any of Indonesia's neighboring countries will come and help. When push comes to shove, as the experience of 1998 proved and the Greece experience confirmed, Indonesia can only rely on itself.
Indonesia is living on a borrowed time. While times are good, the Indonesian government should focus more on eradicating corruption, streamlining the bloated bureaucracy and making cuts into unnecessary expenditure.
SBY's landslide victory in 2009 election showed that people cared a lot about high economic growth and eradicating corruption. These were the messages that resonated with the public.

Recent outrages over "mafias" in the tax office, judiciary, attorney general's office and police force show that people still care about the government doing the right things. People actually demand that the government do something to cut down further on corruption.

"The Greek tragedy" shows that unchecked corruption in the end could be the straw that would break the camel's back.

This year is the 12th anniversary of the May Riot. Back then, Indonesia barely survived the political chaos, the economic collapse, and the ethno-religious strife. The Indonesian government needs to ensure that there will not be any repeat performance of that tragedy.

What we could expect from Obama’s visit

This article was written two weeks before the scheduled visit by Obama to Indonesia. For those of you paying attention, he cancelled the visit because he had to salvage his Obamacare.

Interestingly, this article was quoted by Mr Peter J. Brown in his Asia Times Article that was published a week after this article. There's also a nice reaction from a blogger named Pundita, who elaborated parts of what I wrote (can't do that in a newspaper article, thanks to word limits.)


-------------

What we could expect from Obama’s visit

Yohanes Sulaiman, Jakarta | Wed, 03/10/2010 9:05 AM

Barring any unforeseen trouble ahead, US President Barack Obama is scheduled to visit Indonesia and Australia in the second half of March.

For both President Obama and President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY), the visit will be a welcome diversion from domestic political headaches that currently grip both leaders.

Of course, this will also be a great photo opportunity for both Presidents. Obama will be able to show the folks back home that he is still the most popular president on the face of the Earth and still commands respect and admiration from a country with the highest Muslim population in the world.

Meanwhile, SBY will relish the international spotlight while showing off Indonesia as one of the most beautiful and important countries in the world.

The million-dollar question is what Indonesia should expect from President Obama’s visit.

The bad news is that Indonesia should not expect too much from this visit. Aside from reaffirming Indonesia as one of the US’s major trading and security partners and his personal visit to his childhood “kampung” in Menteng, it is very unlikely that Obama will bring anything major to the table.

With the US congress is in uproar thanks to his healthcare mess and the US economy just starting its slow rebound, Obama’s options are limited.

On the other hand, in light of Indonesia’s recent successes in tackling radical Muslims (e.g. Noordin M. Top), considering Indonesia’s willingness to help the US over the past several years, and not to mention Obama’s personal attachment to Indonesia, SBY needs to capitalize on this occasion to press the US on several important aspects, notably on the issue of trade, security and education.

Trade, of course, will always be one of the most important aspects of this visit. Aside of course, hoping to increase US investment in Indonesia, President Yudhoyono should also focus on trying to increase Indonesia’s exports to the US.

Facing the flood of cheap Chinese goods, thanks to the implementation of the China-ASEAN Free Trade Agreement, Indonesian manufacturers need to increase exports, especially on high-quality or highly specialized goods in order to survive.

Regardless of the economic crisis and high unemployment rate, the US remains one of the richest countries and one of the largest markets in the world.

Its economy has also improved far better than those in Europe. As a result, Indonesia needs to try to increase its market share in the US.

The second important aspect is the military aspect. While the US had lifted its arms embargo on Indonesia, Indonesia still faces difficulties in procuring more arms from the US due to cost, bureaucratic hassle and congressional hostility. Of course, it can be argued the Indonesian military needs to undergo structural reform first.
Still, the fact remains the Indonesian military is vastly under-equipped and needs more equipment and spare parts to defend the huge expanses of Indonesian territory.

As US forces are stretched thin due to commitments in Iraq, Afghanistan and all over the world, the US needs a friendly Indonesia to maintain the stability of the region in the face of threats from a rising China and radical religious terrorists, not to mention criminal elements such as human traffickers or drug smugglers. It is only fair the US help Indonesia modernize and equip its military forces.

While the US Congress, especially the Democrats, are usually pretty hostile and critical toward the Indonesian military, Obama actually could persuade his Democrat party colleagues and more friendly Republican congressmen to back more military aid to Indonesia in order to improve regional security and stability.

The debate over the US policy on Afghanistan showed that Republicans were more than willing to support President Obama’s military buildup, so Obama just needs to convince his Democratic colleagues to support more military aid to Indonesia by arguing that it is in the interest of improving regional security.

The third important aspect is education, especially more opportunity for civilians and military officers to pursue higher education at American universities.

While the quality of Indonesian education is steadily improving, Indonesia still needs more capable civil and military scholars to help further improve its higher education institutions.

In addition, SBY should urge American universities to open branches in Indonesia, as they have in Singapore.

For the US, this is a win-win proposition, an increase in the number of Indonesian scholars studying there means that they will be immersed in American values and share them back in Indonesia when they return.

These scholars can help improve the image of the US and its reputation in Indonesia, which took major beatings under George W. Bush.

On military affairs, as Indonesian Army officers become more professional, they will help reform the Indonesian military and strengthen democracy in Indonesia.

In the end, while Indonesia should not expect much from Obama’s visit, SBY still needs to capitalize on it and push for more cooperation in trade, security and education.


Comments ( 6)

Bambang Jarot, Jakarta | Mon, 22/03/2010 - 09:03am

It's a good start

sofyan, jakarta | Mon, 15/03/2010 - 12:03pm

very good article indeed

Peter Link, jakarta | Sun, 14/03/2010 - 18:03pm

Expect "NOTHING". He can't look after his own country so how is he going to help Indonesia.

jack.udin, jakarta | Thu, 11/03/2010 - 08:03am

I hope both of presidents make some agreements related in trade, security, and education. One thing should not forgotten, Its about freedom of religion.. Nowdays there are many violance related on religion freedom.. Especially prohibition church service and church permission revoked.. I think no one mosque has permission in this country.. So why other religion must be...???

Mike Orgill, Washington D.C. | Thu, 11/03/2010 - 05:03am

Unfortunately Indonesia is not one of the U.S.' largest trading partners. It is my hope that Indonesians will ask Presidents SBY and Obama why it is that the world's 4th most populous nation is only the U.S.' 30th most important trading partner and that this visit will catalyze additional progress in the trade & investment relationship.

Tom Degan, Goshen, NY | Wed, 10/03/2010 - 21:03pm

Who wants to make a little wager that those moronic Democrats to mess this up? They have this positive genius for taking a plate of finely prepared caviar and turning it into Donkey dung. The Republicans are sounding the alarm: If the Dems pass health care reform, they will be slaughtered at the polls in November! It's a political ploy - passing major health care legislation is a no-braner and a sure winner - and yet a lot members of "the party of Franklin Delano Roosevelt" are falling for it hook, line and stinker. It's funny. Every time I forget why I left that worthless, joke-of-a-party twelve years ago, they always cheerfully remind me - and I appreciate that. I really do! Teddy Kennedy is dead and he's not coming back. http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com/
 
Tom Degan Goshen, NY

---------

Sensitive issues call for a soft touch
By Peter J Brown
March 19, 2010

(Note: This article was written before United States President Barack Obama's visit to Indonesia was postponed until June)

The three days Barack Obama will spend in Indonesia no doubt constitute a nostalgic high-point of a trip that will also take in Guam and Australia. Yet the return to a boyhood city is also replete with significant geopolitical and economic challenges.

The Obama administration has gone to great pains from its start over a year ago to make it clear that it intends to be fully engaged in Southeast Asia.

It will be crucial for Obama to acknowledge Indonesia's key role in the region, "amidst China's growing assertiveness and influence" during this visit, according to Evan Laksmana, a researcher at the Department of Politics and International Relations at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Jakarta. Obama will visit Jakarta and Bali from March 23-25 before departing for Canberra.

Other objectives includes "fully normalizing and expanding relations with Indonesia by addressing thorny issues like the lifting of the ban on interaction with the Indonesian Army Special Forces, and further reaching out to the Muslim world and improving America's global standing by mending broken fences left in the wake of president [George W] Bush's policies," Laksmana said.

The ban Laksmana mentions involves a unit known as the Komando Pasukan Khusus, or Kopassus, and has been in place since the late 1990s. A high-ranking delegation of senior Indonesian military officers recently traveled to Washington for discussions on this situation.

Kopassus is not to be confused with "Detachment 88", which is an elite Indonesian counter-terrorism squad named after the 88 Australians killed in the Bali bombing attacks in 2002. This unit has received funds, training and equipment from the US since its creation seven years ago. [1]

This month, Yohanes Sulaiman, a lecturer at the Indonesian Defense University and the executive director of the Center for Democracy Integrated Peace and Security Studies, wrote in The Jakarta Post, "The US needs a friendly Indonesia to maintain the stability of the region in the face of threats from a rising China and radical religious terrorists, not to mention criminal elements such as human traffickers or drug smugglers."

"It is only fair the US help Indonesia modernize and equip its military forces," Sulaiman said. "While the US Congress, especially the Democrats, are usually pretty hostile and critical toward the Indonesian military, Obama actually could persuade his Democrat party colleagues and more friendly Republican congressmen to back more military aid to Indonesia in order to improve regional security and stability." [2]

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono's administration needs a foreign policy triumph "amidst plummeting public approval and domestic political crises", according to Laksmana.

"Finally removing the last 'pebble in the shoe' in US-Indonesia military-to-military relations, ie the special forces ban, and even possibly providing new military hardware, would certainly endear the president in the eyes of the Indonesian military whose support is desperately needed by the embattled president," Laksmana said. "Finally, American investment and education initiatives, if expanded, certainly won't hurt as well."

In effect, this trip may require more careful navigating by Obama than has been previously acknowledged.

"[This ban] is still held up by congressional restrictions on certain types of aid because of the past human-rights abuses of Kopassus," said Josh Kurlantzick, a fellow for Southeast Asia at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York City. "It is unclear whether congress will move on this."

Domestic politics are causing considerable turmoil in Indonesia. Yudhoyono faces criticism from all sides as he tries to press ahead with a reformist agenda to liberalize trade and finance laws. He struggles with endemic corruption and his attempt to develop a more independent court system is a difficult task at best.

"Against him is Indonesia's populist tradition that is suspicious of the West and decisions they feel benefit the wealthy," said Abraham Denmark, a fellow at the Center for a New American Security in Washington, DC. "These forces may use Obama's visit as an opportunity to embarrass Yudhoyono and highlight their discontent. Obama will have to be careful to ensure that his proposals are carefully calibrated for Indonesia's complex domestic political environment."

The complexity of the situation is enormous. Laksmana identifies a number of sensitive issues that "Obama needs to look out for", including "the role of Islam in the state, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, corruption and good governance, terrorism and security, as well as the normalization of mil-to-mil [military-to-military] relations."

"There are tricky issues that Obama would do well to speak about carefully," said Laksmana.

Among other things, Indonesia was the first Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) country to candidly express its reservations about the way in which the new China-ASEAN Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) might adversely impact the Indonesian economy. CAFTA may or may not come up and how Obama responds will be watched closely.

Kurlantzick doubts that Obama is going to spend any time on this trip talking about CAFTA with Indonesians. "It is a trade deal he is not party to, and there are many other important US-Indonesian bilateral issues to discuss," said Kurlantzick.

Denmark, on the other hand, describes Obama as an advocate for free trade and thus inclined to support CAFTA. "[Obama should] highlight the benefits it can bring to the regular people of Indonesia. A clear and convincing defense of free trade may help Yudhoyono and his reformist agenda," said Denmark.

What concerns Laksmana is the possibility that the debate over CAFTA might somehow be misconstrued as a manifestation of broad-based "anti-Chinese" sentiment.

Indonesia's stand on CAFTA is not in any way an indication of a willingness on the part of Indonesians to start waving an "anti-Chinese" banner, Laksmana said. ''The rejection was, despite some fringe voices, mainly economic. Unemployment and Chinese products dominating the local market are critical in this regard. So again, the rejection is not an anti-Chinese move per se."

Laksmana also cautions that if Obama says the wrong thing about CAFTA he might suddenly provide the opposition with an opportunity to embarrass him and cast the whole trip in a negative light.

"Obama should avoid discussing [CAFTA] or [commenting about] how Indonesia should deal with China or how Jakarta should have better prepared the Indonesia public for [CAFTA]," said Laksmana. "This can be easily spun by opposition leaders as meddling in Indonesia's internal affairs.”

That said, Laksmana doubts that during such a public and symbolic visit China would be a focal point of discussion between Obama and Yudhoyono. "There are enough problems to sort out between the countries anyway. In regards to ASEAN, meanwhile, Obama would probably do well to continue repeating his support for a future regional architecture where ASEAN would play a critical role," said Laksmana.

Still, while China's rise will certainly hover in the background for this visit, "The US is engaging Indonesia and Southeast Asia more broadly because of its own importance," said Denmark.

"In terms of potential dark clouds, Obama's discussion of the importance of Indonesia should be carefully calibrated to not offend the sensibilities of Indonesia's neighbors, many of whom are also friends of the US," said Denmark. "As the US looks to build a closer relationship with Indonesia, officials from other states in the region have privately expressed to me a twinge of concern that the US would be able to improve its relations with Jakarta without implicitly downgrading America's relationships with its other friends in the region, or ASEAN overall."

All the countries in the region, including Indonesia, "are trying to figure out how to balance the US and China, but China is far enough away from Indonesia that it is less of an issue for Jakarta than it would be for, say, Bangkok," Kurlantzick said.

"Indonesia definitely has competitiveness issues vis-a-vis China but the strategic concerns are much less, so any idea that the US could push Indonesia to play a kind of anti-China strategic role is pretty unlikely."

China's shadow may loom large, but Obama will most likely also have India in mind. India will certainly be a keen observer as Obama visits what is, in effect, India's extended neighborhood.

"In many ways Indonesia is a smaller version of India - a pluralist, multiethnic, multilingual society that also jealously guards its sovereignty and strategic autonomy," said Sourabh Gupta, senior research associate at Samuels International Associates in Washington, DC. "An expression of US support for Indonesia's rise in Asia as well as within global forums such as the G-20 [Group of 20] would be a reassuring signal of the US's interest in cultivating robust democratic societies in Asia that are proud and independent-minded."

This all about laying the groundwork for a new strategic partnership involving non-treaty allies of the US in Asia, while demonstrating an understanding of where exactly India fits in.

"Indian foreign policy managers have explicitly detailed the entire Indian Ocean rim stretching from Southeast Asia to Southern Africa as its 'extended neighborhood'. Indonesia is arguably the most important country - after the US presence - within this extended neighborhood as well as a valued geographic neighbor by way of a shared maritime boundary," said Gupta.

India already has a bilateral agreement with Jakarta and Bangkok for joint coordinated patrols by the three navies in the Bay of Bengal at the mouth of the Malacca Strait.

"US expression of support for enhanced capacity building, technical assistance and information-sharing with the Indonesian navy as well as coordinated, quadrilateral, sub-regional patrols by the four navies would be seen appreciatively in New Delhi," said Gupta.

Gupta labels this arrangement as "functionally more useful than that other grander 'quad' initiative" involving the US, India, Japan and Australia "which was seen to be lighter content-wise, appeared to be a close-ended arrangement excluding Indonesia and ASEAN, and was deemed to be more polarizing in its anti-China containment connotations".

In the context of ongoing US efforts to reach out to the Muslim community as a whole, expectations are probably enormous. Besides re-emphasizing the importance of Indonesia and Southeast Asia to American interests, and promoting Indonesia's long-term development and emergence as a pivotal state, Denmark identifies highlighting "the success of a democratic, pluralistic state with a majority Muslim population" as Obama's third major objective in Jakarta.

Indonesia's top two Islamic groups - Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) and Muhammadiyah - are urging Indonesian Muslims to welcome Obama.

"The Prophet [Mohammad] himself also had diplomatic ties with adherents of other faiths," said Hasyim Muzadi, the head of NU, while describing Obama as someone who "had shown good intentions in efforts to improve ties between the US and the Islamic world".

However, the welcome mat is not being extended by at least one conservative Islamic organization, Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia, after spokesman Muhamad Ismail Yusanto tied Obama's trip to the presence of US energy companies and stated, "The fact that Obama lived here as a child did not warrant special treatment." [3]
Denmark emphasizes that Indonesia is not a Muslim country, but a pluralistic democratic country that has a majority Muslim population. "That being said, Obama's outreach to the Muslim world, first in Egypt, then Turkey, and now Indonesia, is an important theme of his young presidency," said Denmark.

When it comes to ongoing US efforts to reach out to the Muslim world, Laksmana recommended that Obama speak directly to the people he is reaching out to. "Obama should stage town hall meetings and invite the 'fundamentalist' groups to engage in a public and frank discussion," said Laksmana. "This of course could risk giving credence to such fringe groups. Therefore, a safer bet would be for Obama to organize a public discussion involving the major Islamic organizations like NU or Muhammadiyah."

"Obama is probably going to cite Indonesia as an example of 'Muslim democracy' but many Indonesians do not really like to be viewed that way," said Kurlantzick.

According to Denmark, while Indonesia seeks to solidify its relationship with the last of the "big four" (China, India, Australia, the US - all of whom have affirmed a strategic partnership with Indonesia), this will also enable Jakarta to "highlight Indonesia's regional significance, promote reform and liberalization domestically".

"This is a long-term process that will likely cover several American administrations. Right now, Indonesia's domestic politics will prevent it from being the active and engaged partner that it may be in the future," said Denmark. "For now, the US should encourage Indonesia's democracy and liberalization, promote its emergence as a regional power with global influence, and help it carve a realistic niche for itself within the international system."

Notes
1. Martyrdom, Interrupted National Interest Online, March 3, 2010.
2. What we could expect from Obama's visit.
3. Obama is Welcome in Indonesia, Say Leading Muslim Groups Jakarta Globe, March 16, 2010.

Peter J Brown is a freelance writer from Maine USA.

(Copyright 2010 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)

---------

Indonesian police find Dulmatin and kill him. Oh happy coincidence!

March 5, 2010, Inter Press Service

The administration of President Barack Obama hopes to resume U.S. training of an elite Indonesian military unit whose members have been convicted of gross human rights abuses in East Timor and elsewhere in the sprawling archipelago.

The leadership of Indonesia’s controversial special forces division — the Komando Pasukan Khusus, or Kopassus — has been in Washington to discuss the proposal this week.

Its meetings here come ahead of President Barack Obama’s state visit to Indonesia later this month. The trip will launch "The U.S.-Indonesia Comprehensive Partnership" — a bilateral strategy to enhance security and economic cooperation between the two countries. [...]

March 10, 2010, Reuters

"Today I can announce to you that after a successful police raid against the [three] terrorists hiding out in Jakarta yesterday, we can confirm that one of those that was killed was Dulmatin, one of the top Southeast Asian terrorists," [Indonesia's president] Yudhoyono said in a speech in Australia's parliament house in Canberra.

The series of police raids that led to Dulmatin's death will be seen as a coup in Indonesia's fight against Islamist radicals ahead of President Barack Obama's visit March 20-22. [...]

Isn't this great news? Dulmatin was a very bad man and unfortunately a bright one; he was nicknamed "The Genius" for his skill at bomb making. He also had more lives than a cat; at one point in 2008 he was believed to be dead and buried in the Philippines.

I've heard a plausible explanation as to why Dulmatin might risk returning to Indonesia, even though he was on the country's Most Wanted list and knew that Yudhoyono was turning over every rock in Indonesia in the hunt for terrorists. A spectacular suicide bombing during President Obama's visit would be a great blow to Yudhoyono's government. And -- so the explanation goes -- Indonesia's government had taken out so many terrorists in recent years that there might not have been anyone left in the whole wide world of al Qaeda franchises who could have done the same bang-up job in Indonesia as Dulmatin.

As to how he was tracked down in Indonesia, there is a plausible explanation for that too; you can read about it in the Reuters report I linked to above.

For the types who get nervous when they see happy coincidences and plausible explanations pile up -- now, now! One must always make room for the alignment of the planets. When you combine a fortuitous arrangement of the stars with a little elbow grease and a military's crying need for aid money, training, and spare parts for military equipment, there is no limit to what can be accomplished.

Look at Pakistan. In the space of a few weeks the military there has found, captured or killed so many terrorists, and helped the U.S. military locate so many of the varmints in Afghanistan and Pakistan's badlands, that Foreign Policy had to put together a Cheat Sheet; this in the attempt to keep track of just the major kills. And there have been so many kills by recent "covert" UAV operations that Long War Journal has put up a handy graph and pie chart in the attempt to keep track of them. Yes indeed, terrorist corpses are now piling up faster than anyone can keep count.

Instead of thumbing their noses at all these happy coincidences, American cynics in particular should think about their responsibilities. If you don't know what your responsibilities are -- Yohanes Sulaiman, a lecturer at the Indonesian Defense University and the executive director of the Center for Democracy, Integrated Peace, and Security Studies, explained it all quite wonderfully last week for readers of the Jakarta Post:

While the US had lifted its arms embargo on Indonesia, Indonesia still faces difficulties in procuring more arms from the US due to cost, bureaucratic hassle and [American] congressional hostility. Of course, it can be argued the Indonesian military needs to undergo structural reform first.

Still, the fact remains the Indonesian military is vastly under-equipped and needs more equipment and spare parts to defend the huge expanses of Indonesian territory.

As US forces are stretched thin due to commitments in Iraq, Afghanistan and all over the world, the US needs a friendly Indonesia to maintain the stability of the region in the face of threats from a rising China and radical religious terrorists, not to mention criminal elements such as human traffickers or drug smugglers. It is only fair the US help Indonesia modernize and equip its military forces.

To which General Kayani, the Pakistan military's chief of staff, would add, 'Those are my lines!'

As to what Yohanes Sulaiman means, exactly, when he observes that "Of course, it can be argued the Indonesian military needs to undergo structural reform" -- ahhhh, it's complex. If you're game for plowing through a little complexity we'll return to Charles Fromm's March 5 report for Inter Press Service, which was snapped up by that curmudgeonly anti-war website, Anti-War. Ready?

[...] The Kopassus [Indonesia's special forces] have been notorious for employing brutal tactics since the 1970s, particularly in East Timor, Aceh, Papua and Java. Various human rights groups, including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the East Timor Action Network, have accused the unit of murder, torture and kidnapping among other egregious rights abuses.

The plan to resume U.S. training, however, proposes to limit participation to younger members of Kopassus, as their age would make it more likely that they had not participated in the group’s most notorious abuses.

The new efforts to engage the Indonesian military follow Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s comments last week at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting that the administration hoped to expand its military partnership with Indonesia and enhance counterterrorism cooperation.

However, this policy is not without opposition. Critics argue that Kopassus continues to commit serious abuses with impunity and that restoring a cooperative relationship could actually prove counter-productive.

"U.S. military assistance harms reform and sets back human rights accountability in Indonesia," said John M. Miller, national coordinator of the East Timor Action Network (ETAN).

"The best way to prevent future violations is to hold accountable those responsible for the multitude of human rights crimes committed by the Indonesian military in East Timor, West Papua, and elsewhere. Many of these crimes occurred while the U.S. was most deeply engaged with the Indonesian military providing the bulk of its weapons and training," he added.

Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, sent an open letter to the White House late last month in which he called for Obama to "seize this opportunity to reaffirm that human rights and the rule of law are essential pillars of U.S. engagement in Indonesia."

Roth also asked him to "condition even limited re-engagement with Kopassus" on the firing "of any personnel previously convicted for human rights abuses," and the establishment of a tribunal to thoroughly investigate the disappearance of some two dozen student activists in 1997 and 1998. Rights groups have charged that Kopassus units were responsible.

He also called for wide-ranging structural reforms to enhance civilian control of the military in all realms, from the jurisdiction of military tribunals to the vast military-run businesses that exercise a major influence in the Indonesian economy, particularly in resource-rich regions, such as Papua.

Clear now on the meaning of "structural reform" for Indonesia's military?

Just remember it's all about choices and attitude. You can choose to go through your life bitter and morose at the thought you're being extorted by lying, corrupt, scoundrels who will eschew radical Islam only so long as their palms are greased. Or you can choose to look on the sunny side: think that your tax dollars are helping thousands of young men in less-privileged countries receive the very best training and weapons the U.S. military and American defense contractors can provide.

If you decide to go through life with a smile on your face, then join me in wishing on a star, dancing through clover, and celebrating happy coincidences.

# posted by Pundita : 3/10/2010 06:53:00 AM

SBY and Obama’s healthcare fiasco

 

This article was written with SBY as its main target, noting that SBY should learn from Obama's experience, that he needed to lead, to be out there in the front, not just coming out in the end when the battle was over.

What I did not expect was the accompanying letter to the editor attached in the end of this article by someone named Gerald. I had fun  reading it. Too bad it was published much later so I didn't pay attention to it - I only read letters to editor section in case I need some entertainments, otherwise I'd ignore it. Had I known about this, I'd frame it and hang it.

The letter was amusing because it suggested since I was not a US citizen, I did not have the rights to criticize Obama. He noted that foreigners should mind their own businesses. Well, I'd guess he hadn't heard the names such as Mr. Ben Anderson, Mr. Jeffrey Winters, Mr. Ruth McVey, Mr. George Kahin, Mr. R. William Liddle, Mr. Daniel Lev, Mr. Herbert Feith, Mr. Donald K. Emmerson, Mr. Clifford Geertz, and various other great scholars on Indonesia who criticized Indonesia's political system.

I always find it amusing that it seems that for Obama lovers, there's a freedom of speech except for anyone bashing Obama. I think it is fortunate that he could not (or have not) read my analysis on Obama's victory in Seputar Indonesia, otherwise he'd get a heart attack.

Well, after all this time, I actually wanted to ask him, "so how's that hopey-changey thing working out for ya?" I am not a Palin fan. In fact, I hate her, she is overstaying her welcome and she should fade away. The sooner the better. Still, I do like that phrase. 

Anyway, this kind of stuff make me bitter, so I think I will cling to my guns and religion.

--------

SBY and Obama’s healthcare fiasco

Yohanes Sulaiman, Jakarta | Tue, 02/23/2010 11:08 AM

On Feb. 8, a Marist College survey reported that US President Barack Obama’s approval rating had sunk to 44 percent, with 57 percent of the independents disapproving of his performance.

On the same day, Gallup noted that only 36 percent of respondents approved of Obama’s handling of the economy and healthcare, the main priorities of the Obama administration.
The problems of Obama, more or less, are also being experienced by President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) in his second term.

Obama learned this the hard way. Last year, he was practically the most popular and revered person in the United States and the world, snagging the Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing in the meantime.

He pushed his liberal agenda, healthcare reforms, with a philosophy that can be summed as, “We’ll shove this down people’s throats, they will see how good this is, and they will like it.
I’ve got the mandate anyway, since my popularity rating is at 69 percent [as of Jan. 22, 2009].”

Obviously, the economy was a major factor. At this point, unemployment was still hovering at around 10 percent. Regardless of whether Bush or Greenspan’s failed policies were to blame, the buck still stops at Obama’s desk. Voters simply did not see him spending much time on fixing the economy.

While it is possible to claim that it is unfair to blame Obama completely for the economic problems, the White House shares much of the blame for Obama’s freefall from popularity.
There are two biggest factors for this mess.

First, Obama simply did not lead when he was needed the most. When the healthcare bill was stalled, Congress was lacking direction, and people were confused, Obama was not there to lead.

He did not cajole leaders; did not try to build a coalition of the willing, and compromise. He did not inform people honestly about what was in the healthcare bill. In fact, he seemed to be content to let things move along.

Instead, he simply set arbitrary deadlines, which repelled even the moderate Democrats and Republicans, such as Senators Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), who had earlier agreed to jump on Obama’s healthcare bandwagon (Bloomberg, Dec. 18, 2009, AP Jan.20, 2010).

This lack of leadership, especially in crafting a coalition of moderates, directly created the second problem, which was the lack of trust from people toward Obama’s healthcare bill. As the political elite bickered and squabbled in Washington, people no longer saw the bill as something positive.

As noted by Feaver and Gelpi in their very interesting book, Choosing Your Battles (2003), which was about the American public’s support of military intervention, support from the public increased when the political elite all (or mostly) agreed on the goal of the intervention.

They saw this as proof that the project would be successful and worthwhile.

When the political elite disagreed, however, people started to see the bickering as a signal that something was wrong, that the intervention was going badly. While the book is about military intervention, the logic works for the healthcare debate.

The partisan bickering in Washington about the healthcare bill signaled to the people that the bill was probably not that good.

If it was that good, why would people fight over it? Moreover, the bill was created in secret and rushed by the Democrat-dominated House without any input from the opposition Republicans, further increasing the suspicions.

These factors led to the emergence of the popular protest group called the “Tea Party”, energized the Republicans, while discouraged the Democrats, leading to the Republican victory at the special election in Massachusetts in January 2010.

At the same time, Obama was not seen as presidential; he seemed to be reacting to problems, instead of trying to seize the initiative and to lead.

Currently, President Yudhoyono in Indonesia is walking on the same path as Obama. While the economy is still good (which helps in bolstering SBY’s approval rating), his lack of leadership is worrisome.

Ever since SBY was reelected, the country seemed to be dominated by political problems, from the incompetence in arresting Noordin M. Top, to the failed efforts to frame two commissioners of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) and the Bank Century bailout
scandal.

In all these problems, only silence emanated from Cikeas, the President’s private residence.
The President did not show himself as willing to lead, to seize the initiative and to push his agenda.

As a result, the first 100 days of SBY’s second term was devoid of anything worth celebrating.

There was no bold breakthrough, no strong governmental action in trying to solve national problems from law-enforcements reforms to the high poverty rate.

When the President declared that his first 100 days was a success, only yawns and jeers were heard as a response.

President SBY probably relied too much on the fact that he won a landslide victory in the last election. The only thing President SBY could rely on was good governance and strong leadership. Obama hopefully has learned his lesson. It is hoped that President SBY will show much stronger leadership in tackling national problems.

--------

Letters: On SBY and Obama's fiasco

| Mon, 03/01/2010 1:38 PM

This is a comment on an article titled "SBY and Obama's healthcare fiasco," (the Post, Feb. 23) written by Yohanes Suleman.

As an American citizen living in Indonesia I did not favorably read your rather biased point of view on US President Barack Obama and the multitude of problems he faces, most all from the previous Republican administration.

Your commentary I found to be the same old conservative party line. The conservatives (Republican's) are quick to criticize but never come up with any constructive ideas or solutions. For some in the US, the Republicans are known as the "Party of Nope" (no to any and everything).

I have to assume you are not an American citizen but yet you feel perfectly comfortable pontificating on our political issues. It seems to me you might be a bit more humble and partial to the country that gave you your fine education.

Rather than malign the political processes in another country I should think it better you use the skills you acquired in America to resolve the many problems Indonesia faces.

I am quite sure if I were to write a critical essay on your government, your president, that Indonesian citizens would be quick to tell me to mind my own business and they would be correct.

Gerald
Canggu, Bali

Indonesian parliament in SBY's second term

Ah, naivete. How sweet it sounds. I was really hoping when I wrote this article that the parliament would be jolted out into working hard due to their massive turnover in the election. Plus, SBY would use both his massive popularity and Partai Demokrat's position as the biggest party in the parliament into doing something constructive.

Thus, the past two years has been a major disappointment. How someone who started with so much ended up doing so little.

======================

Indonesian parliament in SBY's second term

Yohanes Sulaiman, Jakarta | Mon, 08/24/2009 11:39 AM

"You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately. Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"

 
Oliver Cromwell, the dictator of England, said those words when he dissolved the parliament in 1653. The Indonesian voters did the same thing in the 2009 legislative election when they voted out 70 percent of the members of parliament and replaced them with new faces, including those of actors and comedians.
 
This massive turnover of the parliament was understandable considering the fact that only very few voters really knew who the most effective members of parliament were. The majority of the members of parliament were virtually unknown, owing their seats to their party membership.
 
Therefore, in the 2009 election, as people voted based on how much they recognized the names on the ballot, it led to the high turnover rate.
 
This is both good news and bad news for Indonesian democracy.
 
The good news is that this shock will help improve the quality of the parliament.
 
The representatives will have to start paying attention to what their constituents really want.
 
It is clear from the election results that voters simply could not identify who was supposed to represent their home regions. Most incumbents came from Jakarta. Very few of them maintained their residency in their home constituencies. Even fewer knew what was going on in their home districts and what the main concerns of their constituents were. Not surprisingly, in LSI's survey taken after the parliamentary election, only 18 percent of respondents felt close to a particular political party.
 
Therefore, the newly elected legislators have to start taking their job seriously and to start paying attention to what voters really want if they want to retain their seats in 2014.
 
This means politicians will have to start tackling issues that people really care about, such as poverty, economic development and the rule of law, rather than wasting their time working on divisive and unnecessary laws such as the pornography law.
 
The bad news is that this period will be a huge challenge to the parliament and to the future of Indonesian democracy. As these new, inexperienced members are learning the ropes, unsure about their roles and responsibilities, they will be prone to the manipulation of more experienced politicians.
 
It will be a while before any new members will be able to understand their roles properly and to assert their own independence.
 
This spells a huge problem, considering the fact that the role of both the parliament and the judiciary is to check and balance the power of the executive branch. Compounding the problem is the fact that the parliament is very unpopular in Indonesia.
 
According to a study by Transparency International, the parliament is seen as the most corrupt institution in Indonesia, closely followed by the judiciary.
 
With a popular president on the executive branch, it will be difficult for the inexperienced parliament to assert its authority as a check against the executive.
 
Further complicating the matter is the fact that virtually every political party represented in the parliament is interested in becoming a part of SBY's new Cabinet, and thus do not have much incentive to oppose the president.
 
Without a credible opposition, the parliament will be completely beholden to the will of the president, thus damaging the constitutional role of the parliament. At that point, the parliament will no longer be a relevant political actor in Indonesia and this will damage the future of democracy in Indonesia.
 
The question then, what is to be done?
 
First, members of the new parliament must realize they have a moral duty as the representatives of the people, rather than advocating their own interests. As a result, they must try to connect and to gauge what their constituents really want.
 
Second, the parliament must institute ethical reforms in order to restore public trust in the body.
 
Third, they should keep in mind the fact that the constitutional role of the parliament is to be both partner and main critic of the executive branch. Even though parties have seats in the Cabinet, they have to understand that in order for democracy to be effective, the parliament has to maintain an attitude of being a loyal opposition.
 
Finally, coming back to Cromwell's quote, that quote basically signaled the dissolution of the British parliament and the beginning of Cromwell's dictatorship that lasted from 1653 to 1658. Therefore, without these changes in attitudes, the performance of this newly elected parliament will be much worse than in the previous period. This would be a huge blow for Indonesian democracy.

Negative and black campaigns

Ini adalah artikel kedua yang saya tulis setelah kepulangan saya di Indonesia. Artikel pertama adalah tentang Obama yang sudah saya upload beberapa waktu lalu.

Artikel ini sebetulnya merupakan ringkasan dari sebuah makalah pendek yang saya berikan dalam sebuah seminar. Artikel ini sendiri adalah sebuah "pesanan" dari seseorang yang sudah capek kepada iklim kampanye hitam pada waktu itu. Apakah artikel ini membantu? Saya tidak tahu.

Waktu itu saya mengirimkan versi bahasa Indonesianya kepada koran Kompas, tapi seperti biasa, tak pernah ada jawaban. Artikel ini akhirnya saya kirimkan kepada the Jakarta Post dengan pertimbangan bahwa the Jakarta Post terkenal sebagai koran intelektual dan karena sedikitnya jumlah artikel yang ditulis orang-orang Indonesia di sana, maka kans artikel ini dimuat akan cukup tinggi. Rupanya prediksi saya benar.

Ini yang menjadi awal dari hubungan saya dengan the Jakarta Post yang berakhir di tahun 2011.

----------------------

Negative and black campaigns

Yohanes Sulaiman, Jakarta | Fri, 07/03/2009 2:58 PM

 

In democratic countries, it is not uncommon for a candidate to be openly and publicly critical, negative even, of their opponent. The reason is simple: it works.

 

A critical or negative campaign mobilizes voters because it educates the masses on important issues and forces voters to think critically about the candidates. It levels the playing field, forcing voters to reconsider the chances of a candidate; a negative campaign eats the aura of a candidate's invincibility. The constant criticism creates the feeling that neither side has surrendered yet, so the election must be close.

Still, we have to be careful in defining what exactly a "negative campaign" is. It is not a "black campaign." A "negative campaign" tries to change voter perception by making them question the worthiness of a candidate, or at the very least, invokes questions on the ability of the target, by, and this is crucial, using correct and trustworthy facts.

"Black campaigning", on the other hand, uses questionable information that is very difficult to prove as objective truth. Black campaigning generally results to personal attacks, using irrelevant or irresponsible information anonymously. The rumors circulating that vice presidential candidate Boediono's wife is a Catholic is a good example of a black campaign tactic.

The difference between "negative" and "black" campaigning is evident in its effects on public opinion. A critical campaign that attacks opponents' policies actually mobilizes voters, while a black campaign reduces voter turnout.
Personal attacks in campaigning can backfire, especially when it is the incumbent who resorts to this. Campaigns that attack a political position and policies, however, can have a significant influence on voter perception.
Legitimate criticisms draw people to the voting booth, while harsh and irrelevant black campaigns simply discourage voting.

Critical campaigning based on fact boosts support for a candidate because it leads people to question the competency of their targeted opponent. People in general pay more attention to negative information than to positive information, simply because people in general try to avoid bad things.

The purpose of critical campaigning is to provide these "signs." By putting a campaign ad on air with negative information, people feel they are receiving more information about the candidate, allowing them to critically evaluate each candidate and giving them confidence to choose the right candidate. Of course, the more the attacker is able to present a credible and objective critical campaign, the more the public will believe what they say.

Although it is important to use data and statistics to increase the credibility of a campaign, what is more important is having the ability to package this information in an effective way. Data and statistics can only be useful if packaged in a way the public find attractive. This ability to present information in an attractive and affective way is known as "framing".

For example, the words "unemployment rate at 20 percent" will not easily change people's perception on an incumbent president's economic policy, unless people can be made to feel that they could be a part of that 20 percent.

Only when an employed person can be made to feel they are in danger of loosing their job, and that finding a new one could be difficult as long as the current government remains in power, will they reconsider the candidate. Hence, the candidate running this type of critical campaign not only gives information, but is also able to create a sense of fear among public that the opponent is not competent.

An effective critical campaign needs to be extremely disciplined in constraining itself, lest it enter the territory of black campaigning. Using black campaigning to pummel an opponent will simply backfire. While, to some degree, it will galvanize support, the price is paid when independent and undecided voters, who are critical for victory, are alienated. Moreover, black campaigns increase partisanship in an election, which makes it difficult to build coalitions after the dust settles.

Although critical campaigning is used as a tactic to get more votes, their most important task is to provide information to the people. Democracy can only be effective when people have enough information about the candidates and parties in the election, both positive and negative.

Critical campaigning therefore has the important purpose of educating the public so they can vote intelligently. It can also educate political elites on how to take criticism in stride and how to fight back honorably under the watchful eyes of the public.

With enough information, people will be less likely to choose unqualified leaders and will develop a critical views. In short, it makes democracy work.