Who's Lying?
A British saying goes that ‘truth is often stranger than fiction,’ and the Buloggate case seems to verify those words. It is truly difficult for the sane among us to accept that a president, a police general and a young businesswoman made a plot that is odder than one found in the most badly written screenplay. However, there is the stark reality of their testimony regarding the route of a number of checks that were written by the Yanatera employees foundation, with a total value of Rp35 billion, evidence that this tangled tale certainly is stranger than fiction.
The conclusion that is most readily arrived at from statements in this case involving the misuse of money of State Logistics Agency (Bulog) workers is that many sides have lied. This is so, even though the testimony was given under oath and threat of prosecution for perjury. This begs the question: just who is it that is lying, and who is telling the truth?
The answer holds an important meaning for the continuance of national life. What is at stake is the good name and trust in President Abdurrahman Wahid. The main issue: is the President involved in this case? How deep is his involvement and is it reason enough to remove him from office?
It is not a matter that can easily be resolved. Even the United States, a country that has more that two centuries’ experience in the ways of democracy, has still not finished debating the exact definition of what it is that can lead to the removal of the president. The Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky affair, which saw the US Congress attempting to impeach the president, is the most infamous recent example. What kind of sin must be committed for a head of state to be called a traitor to his post and, as a result, removed from office?
In Clinton's case, the majority voice in Congress said the 42nd president of the United States was guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice, and it was appropriate that he undergo the impeachment process—a kind of court to determine his removal—in the Senate. But the people of the land, who had been enjoying great economic prosperity under the Clinton administration, were not in favor of his ouster.
The United States, which proclaimed its freedom in 1776, has gone through the impeachment process twice, without a president being removed from office.
This history of the workings of the US—a model for the founding fathers of Indonesia—indicate two important things. The business of removing or retaining a president is a political matter, not a legal one. And the decision to remove a president should take into consideration the need of creating a custom of allowing an elected official to carry out his term in office.
The lesson from this skilled democratic nation is, unfortunately, inapplicable to Indonesia. The problem is that Abdurrahman Wahid is not a president who was directly chosen by the people, and the economy under his administration has not been cause for joy. On the other hand, members of the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR), who have the constitutional right to remove the head of state, were also not elected directly to office.
Because of the electoral system in Indonesia, the House of Representatives (DPR) can more correctly be called the Assembly of Party Representation, since most of its members were not known by the voters in their electoral districts. For that reason, don’t be surprised if members of the DPR and MPR are generally more sensitive to the aspirations of their party leaders, namely the ones who have a say in fixing the list of legislative candidates, as compared to the voice of their respective constituencies.
It is exactly this situation that has led to the current topic of importance: that elected officials should carry out their full terms in office
This should be done in conjunction with improving the general electoral system as well as that of future presidents and vice presidents. And it has to be done with the assumption that those who are in power will not abuse their authority.
This supposition, unfortunately, is difficult to apply to Abdurrahman Wahid. A number of scandals that have rained down upon his presidency may have come about as a result of his own actions, and not from the attacks of his political opponents. His credibility as a figure, who is obsessed with making Indonesia a country that is democratic, tolerant, prosperous and modern, is undermined by his weakness in management and administration, which has led to questions about his integrity in the financial field.
The Buloggate and Bruneigate scandals, as well as the special treatment given to a number of problematic conglomerates, have not only given more ammunition to Abdurrahman Wahid's political rivals, they have also spread disappointment among his supporters. For those who expected much from Abdurrahman’s reign, the available choices are full of thorns. Give full support without reservation, with the risk of creating a government that is all the more entwined in collusion, corruption, and nepotism, or else constantly give warnings with the risk of helping his political opponents to bring down the administration.
Perhaps this is another ‘strange but true’ aspect of Abdurrahman Wahid: in order to support his administration, we have to continuously threaten to topple him.
JK
[an error occurred while processing this directive]