It is too early to sigh relief over the announcement by President Suharto that there will be a new election for president and vice-president in Indonesia at which he will not be a candidate. It is too early because the announcement does not come with a timetable. The world will hope that President Suharto’s statement to the nation will be just enough just in time and not too little too late, but the announcement may be treated with justified suspicion that it is an attempt to buy time.
It appears that whereas President Suharto has lost the support of top civilians in the parliament, which elects the president, he has retained the backing of the army. Parliamentary speaker Harmoko said leaders of the four factions in Parliament would meet today to ask for the resignation of Suharto. But hours later Indonesia’s military chief, General Wiranto, indicated that President Suharto, himself a retired general, should stay in power and guide the implementation of political reforms.
The questions to be asked now are: how long will that process take; how large will the reforms be; and will the rioting students and political opposition stay their hand to allow reform to happen peacefully or will they press on with people power and riots in the streets to get more immediate action.
A lot will depend on events today and whether planned demonstrations take place. Abdurrahman Wahid, leader of the biggest Muslim organisation in Indonesia, met President Suharto at the palace and appealed to students to call off their three months of protests in which 500 people have died. But there was no immediate reaction from Amien Rais, leader of the second biggest Muslim grouping, who has said he will put millions of people on the streets today in a people power demonstration to mark the 90th anniversary of the founding by students of the first Indonesian nationalist organisation during Dutch colonial rule.
General Wiranto has ominously warned the students and other anti-Suharto elements to call off their demonstration.
President Suharto has a point in saying it would be irresponsible for him to resign and walk away. That would leave a power vacuum which could result in civil unrest of the opportunist sort that accompanied the recent student demonstrations — people looting and engaging in gratuitous violence. It could also result in separatists moves by some of Indonesia’s many non-Javanese ethnic groups.
It would be better for President Suharto to stay and supervise reform, provided he does it quickly and genuinely. But if he thinks he can use this as a stunt to buy time he is wrong and the fury will be worse if he does not fulfil his promise to organise an election as quickly as possible. There is terrible tendency in world history for dictators to cling to power at all costs, putting themselves before their country causing greater misery and loss of life and property. But President Suharto has not been utterly totalitarian; his rule has always been tempered by other forces and voices, notably those of the army, his religion and his nationalism. President Suharto makes a strong point when he says the constitution has to be adhered to or Indonesia could slide into bloodshed and even civil war. He should be given a reasonable time to depart with dignity — weeks but not months.
In the end, though, it will be no good replacing the man, if the system stays rotten. If a decent into violent protest is to be avoided key issued have to be addressed by the ruling elite: an end cronyism, greater accountability of rulers, press and other freedoms, the release of political prisoners, local autonomy for ethnic minorities. President Suharto’s family will have to yield some of their ill-gotten wealth and depart the scene. These changes will take time. It is difficult to change culture of corruption overnight. But steps can be taken quite quickly to start the process and for President Suharto to indicate he is genuine about it.
Political reform essential to economic progress, but it will require more than just President Suharto stepping down to get the economy going again. There is a need for more openness, accountability, and a genuine level playing field for investors, not the anti-competitive cronyism where Suharto family members have been given unjustifiable monopolistic rights and state subsidies.
Of course, the lesson for western capitalists who have invested in Indonesia (and elsewhere) is that ingratiating themselves with undemocratic regimes may make earnings in the short term, but is uncertain, and often catastrophic, in the long-term. There is no substitute for ethical investment and using economic power to encourage human rights as well as economic development. Foreign companies which exploited joint ventures with Suharto family companies should not expect a great deal of sympathy now. The lie has been put to the view that economic development in Asia requires respect of something called the “”Asian way” which has been little more than an excuse for leaders of undemocratic regimes to stay in power and feather their own nests. This method of doing business was unsustainable and caused its own collapse.
There are hopeful signs in Indonesia that things will change for the better. It is important that countries like Australia push for grater democracy. US President Bill Clinton was right to say that Indonesia’s people should decide who leads the country. The new leadership should not be a newer model of the old regime driven by a younger but no more democratic president.