A

n expert on Indonesian politics from Australia’s Deakin University, Damien Kingsbury, recently published Two Steps Forward, One Step Back: Indonesia’s Arduous Path of Reform, which highlights the need for Indonesia to press ahead with reform in order to convince the world that it can still be a major global player. Kingsbury is the director of the Center for Citizenship, Development and Human Rights at Deakin University and has written extensively on Southeast Asian politics. In 2005, he was invited by the Crisis Management Initiative to advise the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) in the Aceh peace talks and later advised the West Papua National Coalition for Liberation on methods for negotiating peaceful resolutions to conflict. He speaks to The Jakarta Post’s Chloe Booker on how Indonesia’s domestic politics effect its position internationally.

Question: Under President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono there has been efforts to stamp out corruption and reform the legal system. What’s worked and what’s gone wrong?

Answer: In short, SBY has run into vested corrupt interests both within and outside the House of Representatives, which have slowed progress to the point where the political cost of continuing the anticorruption drive has been unsustainable. One could argue that there is little point in pursuing a reform agenda if the backlash will be worse than the problem it is trying to resolve, or stymies other areas of government activity. Another view is that SBY has lacked sufficient political will at a critical time and that corrupt vested interests have won the battle.

What’s your assessment of the performance of Indonesia’s House of Representatives?

On balance, it has performed poorly. There remains too much interest in pursuing personal and sectional political agendas and little commitment to working as best as they can on behalf of the public. The notion of public service remains shallowly embedded in Indonesian public life, except for some of the better civil society organizations. Even though significant elements of the House have changed since 1998, with it being much more active and interventionist, parts of it continue to reflect a cultural continuity times that were less representative.

Do you believe decentralization has been a positive step in Indonesian politics?

Over-centralization has been a problem for Indonesia since its first years of independence and has led to considerable resentment in the outer regions. Decentralization has eased some of those pressures. However, the standard of government service has declined in many regions, due to lower levels of expertise, while previously highly centralized corruption has now been decentralized and, according to some observers, has become worse as a consequence.

What is your assessment on the current situation in Papua? What has been the effect of decentralization there?

The situation in Papua remains disastrous for most ethnic Papuans, reflected in the extremely low human development indicators that most ethnic Papuans experience. The positive effect of decentralization has been minimal, in part because much of its substance has not been implemented, because the military retains an excessive influence in regional affairs and because an external desire to extract as much profit as possible from Papua while riding roughshod over the lives of many Papuans has lead to continuing bitterness towards Jakarta. The current moves to address some of the development issues in Papua are viewed with real suspicion by most ethnic Papuans — they believe they are new wrappings on old problems. It’s possible to achieve a resolution to Papua’s problems, if there is sufficient political will in Jakarta to openly address the key issues in partnership with Papuan leaders, both elected and from among those who continue to resist Jakarta. However, to ensure transparency and to help ensure there are some guarantees around any possible agreement that might be reached, there would need to be international mediation. It is not possible to expect there could be agreement with a party in a conflict also being a mediator. Only the most foolish and narrowly focused could regard the settlement of the Aceh conflict as anything other than a positive for Indonesia, and for the people of Aceh within Indonesia. Acknowledging that Papua is different to Aceh, it remains surprising and disappointing that the Indonesian government was not able to follow up the success of the Aceh settlement with a similar settlement in Papua.

Minority groups continue to be persecuted in Indonesia. How do you rate the government’s actions toward this problem?

The situation with minority groups, particularly religious groups, is disturbing and gives lie to the claim the Islam in Indonesia is tolerant. There are clearly elements of Indonesian Islam that are intolerant, sometimes violently so. Under Indonesia’s own laws there is a right to practice religion freely and safely. This is not being upheld, sometimes with the connivance of government officials. Indonesia’s international reputation continues to suffer because there is a reluctance in some official quarters to uphold the country’s own laws.