The battle over the outcome of the Bank Century case in the House of Representatives has not yet been won. What the House recommended after last week’s plenary session was only political posturing, which will prove to be more discourse than an actual legal verdict. If their recommendation is to be effective, lawmakers face a long and winding road ahead.
On the chessboard, the “pieces” of Vice President Boediono and Finance Minister Sri Mulyani Indrawati are essentially safe. This is because most of the evidence proposed by the bailout’s opponents is procedural, debatable and seemingly politicized.
The only facts uncovered so far has been an instance of political fraud, which allegedly involves the politically literate upper crust who are few in numbers. What that means is that, whatever the result is, it changes nothing.
We might also say that the House’s barbs were wasted on an opponent with to hardy a defense. President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, with his conventional strategy, never seemed to sacrifice any of his pieces, not even a pawn.
Take a look at how, after more than 100 days of his second tenure, he has held onto certain people in his team despite their very public mistakes. His strategy is effective. In return for the favor keeping them in the fold, these individuals will be more loyal and trustworthy.
On the other hand, choosing to target the Vice President and finance minister more than hinted that the legislators’ held vested interests in the case.
The public immediately suspected there were ulterior motives, which did not deal with the needs of the people. That’s why members of those parties that opposed the bailout failed to simultaneously ignite the will of the people and maintain the support of the politically literate to actively endorse and support them.
Back to the chessboard, the House legislators’ move was a direct attack, made in the hope that the opponent would be quickly subdued. But most politicians forgot that the skirmish had just begun and Yudhoyono stood unscathed.
It seems that the President’s governmental structure is too strong to be toppled. And as opposed to former president Soeharto, the current government also has political legitimacy as a president directly elected by people, and not by members of the People’s Consultative Assembly.
What the House inquiry committee has done is chase the will-o’-the-wisp.
Even if there were good reasons for them to do so, the efforts made by parties such as Golkar to uncover “the scandal,” might have resulted in putting their credibility at stake.
In this case, the intention to take advantage of the situation may have ended to their disadvantage. For instance, the attack on Boediono and Mulyani has led to airing of some dirty laundry, namely the alleged tax violations by Golkar leader Aburizal Bakrie.
Contrary to many political observers, who said that President Yudhoyono’s speech on the Bank Century case did not change anything, the landscape has changed, only this time to the advantage of the President and his team.
With a strategy that resembled tai Chi martial arts, they took advantage of their opponents energy, redirected it and hit them back unexpectedly.
While Yudhoyono remains unbeatable, the opposition remains unfortunate. The legal process recommended by the House inquiry committee may also end in uncertainty.
The reason is simple: It is never easy to collect and propose sufficient evidence for such a case. In addition, the Indonesian legal system still tends to favor the ruling power.
For the sake of democracy and good governance, the material and moral expenses in this saga were not entirely wasted. Regardless of the quality, there have been political lessons learned on both sides.
The opposition, for example, has learned they must better strategize and play their pieces more carefully in the future.
With the need for checks and balances in a sound political atmosphere, their inability to make convincing moves will only result in their defeat and, more worrying, the defeat of democracy itself.
That’s why, in the Bank Century saga, we should applaud the opposition to a certain extent, while at the same time lament their insensitivity to engage in the battle with the people’s interests at heart. If they had done that, there would have been a different result.
The writer is a teacher at Lazuardi GIS Jakarta.
| 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|