'Soeharto treated the nation like subordinates in the military'

Mon, 02/04/2008 7:00 AM  |  Headlines

As different as heaven and earth has been the way historians have compared Indonesian's two longest-serving presidents, Sukarno and Soeharto. The Jakarta Post's Charlotte Wheatley and Ella Davison talked to leading Indonesian historian Asvi Warman Adam for his insights into two of the most influential leaders of the 20th century. Below are excerpts of the interview.

Question: To what extent has the death of Soeharto impacted on the public compared to that of Sukarno?

Answer: Sukarno died in 1970, a year before the first general elections in the New Order era. By virtue of a presidential decree, Soeharto decided that Sukarno was to be buried in Blitar (East Java). The reason was that there was no family agreement. In fact, Sukarno had written in his will that he should be buried in the Bogor Botanical Gardens.

In my opinion, Soeharto deliberately had Sukarno buried in Blitar for security reasons. If he were to be buried in Bogor, the supporters of Sukarno, after visiting the grave, could flock to the capital city and stage a demonstration.

Soeharto's death reminded the lower-class people more of his economic impact. The developing myth is that during the Soeharto era, economic conditions were not as bad as now. There were enough supplies of commodities. Today, kerosene and flour are in short supply. Finding a job then was not as difficult as it is today.

To what degree did their political ideologies differ?

Sukarno developed national character. He implanted nationalism in the minds of the Indonesian people so that they would feel equal to other nations in the world. "We are not a tempeh nation," he said, meaning that Indonesians could not be subjected to colonization and dictated to by other people.

Soeharto tried to establish state building. He improved the economy by relying on foreign investments and loans. Formally, he institutionalized general elections regularly every five years. With a democracy that tended to be just "a formality", he successfully created national stability, which is a precondition for economic development.

How did the media response to the two differ?

Media coverage of Soeharto's death was extraordinary. The contrast between the deaths of Soeharto and that of Sukarno was so different it was like heaven and earth.

Soeharto made headlines on television for almost a month in early 2008. When Sukarno passed away, there were only 10 expressions of condolence printed in the media all over Indonesia (three came from Sukarno's supporters, namely the Central Board of the Indonesian National Party and the PNI faction in the DPR-GR and GMNI).

In the past week, hundreds and even thousands of statements of condolence were published in the media. Not only private parties but also ministers and regional heads (governors and mayors/regents) put up these condolence advertisements. It is appropriate to raise a question about where the money for these advertisements came from. Can this be categorized as graft?

For the current generation, who will make the bigger impression in terms of national identity?

Of course Sukarno, with his fiery addresses, he aroused the spirit of the young people and made them realize that we are citizens of the world and members of the changing international community.

Soeharto gave prominence to the national economy, which was supported by national stability. To support national stability, national identity was needed and for Soeharto this national identity was conformity.

The history taught at schools also had to be uniform. Political parties also had to adhere to a sole ideology, Pancasila. Discipline had to be enforced. Soeharto treated this nation as if they were his subordinates in the military.

Is the present economic condition worse or better than during Soeharto's times?

Soeharto's administration for over three decades can be divided into three periods. In the first period, 1966-1978, the economic condition was still bad because the previous period was even worse.

In the second period, 1978-1988, things were better than now. This was the heyday of Soeharto. In the third period, 1988-1998, the economic condition was declining while the businesses of Soeharto's family became more widespread, not only in Jakarta but also to all corners of Indonesia.

The years 1997 and 1998 were very difficult years for the Indonesian economy, which was hit by a multi-dimensional crisis.

So, compared with 1997/1998, the present economic condition is better. However, the level of prosperity has dropped compared with the second period of Soeharto's administration.

This scarcity of commodities is like the situation in 1965 just before the outbreak of the Sept. 30 Movement. What is different today is that now Indonesia can boast 200,000 wealthy people from among its population of 200 million people. Malls and exclusive boutiques are found everywhere, but close by, under the bridges, you can find a lot of vagrants, who have been evicted from their homes and now have no money to eat.

The parking lot at the House of Representatives looks as if it were a showroom for luxury cars. This gap is really extraordinary. Unless the government addresses this gap, a social revolution is not unlikely.

Copyright © 2008 The Jakarta Post - PT Bina Media Tenggara. All Rights Reserved.