One of the answers could be found in the experience of B. J. Habibie, the Indonesian president in 1998-1999, in cementing the country’s democratic foundation. This experience unfolds in his interview by the authors of Democratic Transitions: Conversation with World Leaders, edited by Sergio Bitar and Abraham F. Lowenthal (2015). Apart from Habibie, the authors interviewed several other leaders of democratic transition countries such as Ghana, the Philippines, Spain, Poland and South Africa. In the case of Indonesia, none else is recognized by the world as a democratic pioneer other than Habibie. Although having a radically brief time in government, Habibie’s leadership was crucial on the fate of Indonesian democracy. Why? As stated by political scholar Bahtiar Effendy and Mutiara Pertiwi in this book, there was another scenario should Habibie, who replaced Soeharto who stepped down in May 1998, have failed to run the country.

“General Wiranto as defense minister and commander of the armed forces, held Soeharto’s undisclosed instruction to rescue the nation by ‘all means necessary’ if there were a political emergency.” In other words, there was an existential uncertainty concerning not only Habibie’s presidential position, but also the future fate of democracy at the national level.

In the first part of his interview, Habibie said he was never interested in becoming president of Indonesia. “I,” he adds, “even never.” “I‘m never interested in becoming a minister.” What he wanted was to bring technology into Indonesia to produce airplanes. In this case, Habibie reached a deal with Soeharto in 1974 to build airplanes in Indonesia through a government-owned enterprise which was run like a private enterprise. “I did,” he says “and I delivered on schedule.”

“Uninteresting to be a president” and “totally concentrate himself in technological realm” are clues in understanding his lone fight for democracy.

In my book, Esai Politik tentang Habibie (Political essay on Habibie, 2013 [1999]), I chose the phrase “knowledge is power” in interpreting why Habibie had reached the power at a high pitch in Indonesia. I tend to insist that Indonesian politics has transformed dramatically from the mass-based politics to the knowledge-based politics. In this context, by observing Habibie’s path to power, the mass-based support has not yet prevailed in the political struggle as the possession of knowledge has gradually taken over its place. The future political struggle, therefore, would not be based on the masses supporting expressions, but on the “war of ideas”. This mirrors Clifford Geertz’s “politics of meaning”.

But lately I know it is a big mistake. The fall of Soeharto in 1998 brought about two politically important things. First, the reversal of the mass-based politics that has automatically dwarfed the role of the erudite persons within it. Second, the desertion of people who used to be close to Soeharto. The latter refers to Habibie.

It was a public secret that Habibie was the protégé of Soeharto. This desertion had left Habibie alone. Unlike Soeharto who built a wide and complex political networks for 32 years, mainly within the military, for concentrating himself in technological development, Habibie from the beginning had no opportunity to follow his “guru”. When he replaced Soeharto as president, therefore, Habibie found himself deserted. Neither the military nor the remnants of Soeharto’s supporters fully supported him, let alone the opposition.

“Suddenly,” Habibie says in the interview, “a lot of conflicting information and advice poured in.” This sentence concludes Habibie’s previous story. That is, when he started his job as a president, Habibie came to realize how powerful he was. He received intelligence reports from the army, air force, navy, police and the intelligence agency itself. Besides, various information also came from the home ministry, foreign ministry as well as Golkar Party. He gives comment on these: “I read these very detailed reports, which did not match each other.” It is the mismatch of those information that gave birth to the aforementioned Habibie’s sentence. Then, he continues: “If I had followed some of this advice, there would have been a violent revolution. The people would have been most adversely affected by such a revolution where the innocent people who just want a normal life, and I could not allow that to happen.” It is the effort of getting accurate information that drove Habibie to impose democracy. “I decided,” he says, “to lift the laws restricting the freedom of the press.” Why? Habibie answers: “By allowing freedom of expression, I could receive accurate information on the attitude of the people toward my administration.”

At this stage, we understand why Habibie took a different political system from Soeharto, his predecessor. Inaccurate information produced by a non-democratic regime had become a basic cause for the regime fall. However, there was a fundamental point a view that Habibie stressed, which is his idealism “to give power back to the owners of the state.” Who are they? Habibie answers: “The people of Indonesia.” The power does not belong to “a family, a man, me, my children, but the people.”

Not only did he lift laws restricting the freedom of expression, Habibie released political prisoners. In his thought, the prisoners did not deserve bad treatment “simply because they opposed the president in power.”

He continued his democratic action by organizing a free general elections in 1999. In this endeavor, Habibie even officially recognized the election results although his party Golkar lost to the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDIP) which was led by Sukarno’s daughter Megawati Soekarnoputri. To convince the world, Habibie invited former US President Jimmy Carter and a number of American and European Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) to directly observe that “democracy fiesta”.

It is the determination of not taking the power for himself and his family that turns to be the Habibie’s legacy to the nation. This is invaluable. If the alternative scenario to “rescue” the nation “by all means all necessary” such as tacitly held by Wiranto really happened, we would not have seen the democratic life. However, as we have been witnessing since 2014, the way we practice democracy is not as strong as Habibie’s determination in creating and maintaining it.

Habibie’s legacy has been treated so badly. Instead of filling the democracy with great ideas that could be intellectually accounted for, most political actors have reduced it to a mere struggle for power, void almost totally from genuine intellectual visions. Democracy must be rescued from the parochial treatments of the political elite.

***

The writer is a co-founder of the Institute for the Study and Advancement of Business Ethics (LSPEU Indonesia).

Popular

RI, Australia strengthen partnership on taxing crypto assets

Analysis: Indonesia denies normalization with Israel to enter OECD

Citroen to produce electric cars in Indonesia