Should the President be replaced?
Demand is growing for the removal of President Abdurrahman Wahid from office – not only in intensity, but also in a broadening of the basis of support for such an action. No longer is opposition to his government limited to the Axis Force alliance alone, it has broadened to embrace people who stood by him when the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) tried, without success, to unseat him in August of this year.
The growing pitch for Wahid’s removal must have come as a poor gift for Wahid on the first anniversary of his administration. Sadly, his declining popularity is of his own making. It was due more to his own erratic behavior than to the shrewdness of his political opponents. The man who rode the wave of Reformasi to be the first democratically elected president of the republic in October last year -- on whom Indonesians then placed their hopes for a better future – has now become a confluence of so much bitter disappointment.
Like a man intoxicated by alcohol, the euphoria of Reformasi has now degenerated into a hangover. Bringing down the old regime was like cutting a big tree. It gave so much satisfaction to see the tree falling. But cleaning roots so deeply entrenched in the ground needed much energy, time and patience. Don’t forget that failure to complete the time-consuming job will only give an opportunity to the roots to grow into a new tree, much of the same kind.
Leadership in Reformasi requires the ability to keep public impatience in check, to convince the people to endure the current situation and assure them there is sunshine behind the cloudy skies.
Such an ability can come only from a leadership with a clear vision and a strong commitment to the future. Wahid is a man of vision but, unfortunately, his political behavior does not in any way reflect a firm commitment to carry out the job. On many occasions, he has even given the impression that he is fickle.
Perhaps Wahid’s zigzag behavior is inherited from past days when he had to contend with a repressive, authoritarian regime. His political maneuverings, ever unpredictable, were then necessary in order survive a contest with a stronger adversary. But applying the same strategy today, when he is leader of the nation, will precisely produce the opposite effect. It will only confuse his supporters.
Look at what happened to Amien Rais and his Axis Force alliance, which brought Wahid to the presidency. And to Indonesian economist Sjahrir, who strongly defended the President against an attempt by the MPR to impeach him back in August. Last week, Sjahrir changed completely. He’s now at the forefront of those beating the ‘war drums’ against the Wahid administration.
All this demonstrates Wahid’s weaknesses and his failure to keep pro-democracy forces united in pursuit of Reformasi. Of course, Wahid is not the only person to blame. Transient political objectives have also bedeviled Amien Rais, Vice President Megawati Soekarnoputri and other reform leaders who in the past had joined forces against the Suharto regime. Differences among them were generally motivated more by personal sentiments, not by a desire to maintain the momentum of Reformasi.
Others, including the media, also share the collective sin of failing to empower themselves toward a democratic autonomy, a prerequisite for the growth of democracy. In a civic society, the duty of keeping the government clean rests with every individual (fardhu ain), not with the leaders alone (fardhu kiffayah), as was the case in the past.
Admittedly, transforming emotional politics to rational politics at this stage will weaken the charismatic hold people like Wahid, Amien Rais and Megawati have on the people. It will only weaken the capacity they now have in the struggle with pro-status quo forces, which still have enormous material resources at their disposal. Still, reliance on charisma alone will in the last analysis bring more harm than good. For it will only lead to a heightened conflict, fueled by racial, ethnic, religious and other primordial sentiments.
The only good an emotional leadership offers at this juncture is in creating a platform of unity – agreement on new rules of the game to be observed, formally and judicially, by everyone. As it is now, charismatic leadership serves short-term political interests that only heighten emotional and primordial conflicts at the grassroots level.
The growing conflict over whether Wahid should be removed from office will induce every political group to mobilize forces and use every means, including charismatic leadership, to achieve its political objective – meaning that a big disaster is just around the corner.
Of course, we should not let that disaster come to pass. This we could do if all pro-democracy components were willing to sit down and talk, and think rationally. Replacing a head of state is not a taboo, but it is a serious matter nevertheless. The United States, a democracy for over two centuries, has seen only two presidents of the republic being impeached – without success.
If the process of removal is to be carried out, it better not be done in a patchwork manner. The fact that the MPR, which brought Wahid to the presidency, is now desirous in bringing him down only shows the quality of the legislators. Why not reform the MPR and the House of Representatives (DPR) as well, by enacting a law which provides for the election of the president by direct voting and of members of the DPR who really represent the people?
To date, the DPR has presented itself as a collection of people serving either their own selfish interests or the interests of the parties to which they belong. Few of them, if any, ever come face to face and talk with their constituents. It is only reasonable that these people, too, should be replaced.
MH