SBY is a good solidarity maker, but we have passed this phase

The following is an excerpt from a conversation between The  Jakarta Post’s  researchers, Frans Surdiasis and Rais Hidayat, with Dr. Anies Baswedan, the rector of Paramadina University.

Question: What are the prospects for the consolidation of democracy in 2010?

Answer: The 2009 general elections were the beginning of third period in Indonesia’s democracy. The first was between 1999 and 2004, and the second was the 2004-2009 period. The success of the 2009 elections can be judged with at least two parameters. First, whether the elections were held with good management or organization. Second, whether the elections were decisive.

We saw problematic management, but the public did not follow up on these problems, — probably because our society is too tolerant. Were the elections decisive? Yes, because SBY [President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono] won 60.82 percent of votes in one round. The Democratic Party [Yudhoyono’s party] won from 7 percent [in 2004] to 20.83 percent in 2009.

The challenge is that this third period is a critical period within the transition from an authoritarian regime to a democracy, because during this period people still remember good things about the past. We have experienced democracy for 10 years, and the result still has not met our expectations. In the first and second periods people still could understand, but not in the third period (2009-2014).

Democracy should have been delivered. In many countries, the third period is often the period when we see a return to authoritarianism or a consolidation of democracy. So this period is crucial to the existence of our democracy.

But did our political actors realize this critical period?

In this context it is very important for political actors to realize we are in our critical moment because, in the end, democracy is about actors. Are they aware that politics is not just about power?

Politics is about the delivery of promises to the people. What is the promise? The promise is about independence. This promise should be realized. That is what we should deliver now.

From another perspective, many political actors regard politics as only about power, not about policy, and not about agendas or promises. Because politics is about power they might think about elections every single day. No, elections take place once every five years. After that there are no more elections.

When there are still people thinking of ways to bring down this government, or wondering how we can replace that person, then you are not going to think about policy, about agenda. You only focus on how to get power. The design of democracy in terms of how to get that power is during election season. After that it is about policy. But do our politicians realize this? This republic was founded for the purpose of improving the welfare of the people. So it is very crucial for them to realize this situation.

Is our democracy on the right track?

I think so. We are on the right track in this process of transition. There are not many countries that have undergone such drastic changes as quickly as Indonesia has, or as significant those changes Indonesia is undergoing. It is amazing. It is like the big bang. The party system has been reformed.

The electoral system has been reformed. The military-civil relationship has been reformed. Civil liberties have been improved. Central and local government has been reformed. There have been so many achievements.

Then what should our agenda be?

There are two things that will determine the foundation of our future. First is the legal system, and second is our bureaucracy. In the past it was the government who decided on policies, disregarding the people’s aspirations. Our recent liberalization focused too much on the input components, because those were the past which were cut by Soeharto. Political parties are widely opened. Freedom of speech is guaranteed. But we forget that  the bureacracy will not be able to give benefits as what we aspired when it is not reformed. Bureaucracy is still designed to support authoritarianism. For instance if you are elected as regent, your whole supporting system is still inherited from the previous regent.
So when you come with the ideas to change it will be very difficult. It is not easy to replace or move civil servants. When we adopted democracy we never imagine that bureaucracy should be competible with democracy. So what we are now experiencing in Depok, where its mayor comes from different party [Prosperous Justice Party, or PKS] from his apparatus. It does not work. To the front, we must divide the bureacracy into two. Fist are careers and others are apointees based on political consideration. Otherwise it will not work.

Secondly, our legal system. The Bibit-Chandra [two Corruption Eradication Commission deputy chairmen] controversy shows us how our legal system, instead of creating certainty has produced uncertainty and abuse of power.

When you have authority and it goes unchecked you will exercise your authority for very different interests. This should be reformed. So we are on the right track in the sense we have done so many things. So if we consider these two factors, we have the necessary modality to continue the consolidation of our democracy.

What precondition is required in managing the third period of democracy consolidation?

We must be able to finish the reform of our bureaucracy and legal system. Fortunately, in this third period we have the same leader as in the second period. President Yudhoyono can no longer run for a third term in 2014, so he can make a lot of difficult decisions without worrying about his political career.

So I hope in his second term, the President is brave enough to revamp our bureaucracy. He needs to take quick measures in using this momentum to put our legal system in order. The momentum is there. Today we have the momentum. We don’t want to lose the momentum that we can capitalize on. I do hope our experience with the Bibit and Chandra, and Bank Century cases make us adopt measures more quickly. Firmness should be explicit and not just implicit and executed. If we should confront the enemy let it be. So what? In this world no people adore you. Only clowns are adored.

What kind of political leadership do we need in this current context?

SBY is a good solidarity-maker. We have passed this phase. Now what he must demonstrate is no longer about companionship, but more about pioneer-ship. Can SBY become a pioneer? He must be in the front line. The President has been elected, so we no longer talk about who supports and who doesn’t support. Now we should move on to what we are going to give. The President must focus on that.

I worry that if our focus is more on maintaining support we will be in difficulty, because the nature of support is dynamic. We can not agree with all the issues. So, we don’t need to always adjust decisions to make you always with me. That is the dynamics of politics.

What is the role of civil society?

Democracy will be well consolidated when civil society is solid and dynamic. A democracy is functioning when all stakeholders compete there. In Indonesia the relationship between the public, political parties and politicians are often like fan clubs. It is not about reciprocal relationships. We often hear that we should be more sincere, but in politics, quote unquote, there should be a sense of reward.

I support party X because I can get what I hope from that party. Such a transaction should take place.

But, of course, this is not meant in terms of monetary reward. The people’s sincerity must be based on ideas, goals and dreams, and not like in soccer. Supporters get into brawls to support their team. But after the match they do not get anything. To get benefits, civil society needs to organize itself. Without such self-organized social capital we will remain weak.