ASIAN AFFAIRS INTERVIEW WITH ABDURRAHMAN WAHID (GUSDUR) (1) Current President of Indonesia TALKS ARE POLITICAL COMMODITIES Note from the editor: The interview was carried out prior to the election of Gusdur to the Presidency. That is why we find it today quite relevant and ironic. Serge Berthier.- Why do we always have so many riots in Indonesia which most of the times seem flaring up out of very petty arguments and not really politically driven? Adburrahmann Wahid.- Violence comes to the fore when the government loses its respectability. That is the problem. If people trust the government, they leave all problems, disputes and conflicts they are facing to the government. The politicians are guilty of giving priority to their partisan interests and the people are left out. SB.- There is indeed a relation between violence and trust, or rather lack of trust, but even during the days of President Soeharto, where trust was not an issue, communal violence was a daily occurrence… AW.- Unity and diversity have always been the two single most important characteristics of Indonesia with what it entails. We are many, and we are one. We have things that unifies us, and things that diversifies us. We are defined in more than 13,000 islands (2) and 300 languages. And in that number I do not include the local dialects. That gives you an idea of the diversity. National language was an issue when Soekarno announced that Bahasa, a language which derives from the Malay, would be our official language. It was not the language used by the biggest number of Indonesian but it was the most commonly used between people. SB.- What about the religion? Isn't it a unifying factor? AW.- Between June and August 1945 (3), we played with the idea of carrying on the Islamic law, the Sharia, to its utterance. But on the 17th of August, it was admitted that people from the Moluques and people from other islands that are not mainly Muslim would not accept it and so we rejected the idea of a state based on the Islamic Law. From that day the Indonesian State was, and is still based on nationality. SB.- That was 54 years ago. Yet, religion does not seem to be a dead issue. It is actually on the agenda of every political activist. AW.- I reckon that the dialogue is still on that theme. But people are loyal to the idea of one Indonesian nation despite the fact that the country comprises 3 very different ethnic groups with the Indonesian of Chinese origin, the Malay, which comprise the Sumatranese, the Javanese, the Kalimantanese, the Sulawasinese, and the Balinese. Then we have the Melanesian, men with a black skin and curly hair. They are taller usually than the other groups and quite close to the aboriginal of Australia. Soekarno used to refer to Ernest Renan‘s expression, “Elan Vital” when talking about our diversity (4). SB.- President Habibie is saying that Indonesia could have become the next Yugoslavia if the government had lost control. Is there a real risk of Indonesia splitting as it nearly did in the 1950s? AW.- No, I do believe that Indonesian can accept the idea of creating one country based on nationhood. SB.- Then why so many riots and friction, churches and mosque being looted and burnt, clerics being accused of witch-crafts, and so on? AW.- Indeed, we have a lot of friction. We had friction in 1948. We had them in 1959 and now, we have some more. It is a fact that part of the Islamic movements feel that a majority of Indonesian think that the idea of the State based on the Jakarta Charter, that is on a secular country, is not suitable any more. But we, from the Nahdlatul Ulama, and in fact the majority of the population, don't share such a view. We have to abide by the nationality. SB.- But you admit that not everyone agrees. Some do not want a State based on a plural society. The issue has not been laid to rest. AW.- The coming election will decide on this. If we win, then the hope for an Indonesia based on the Islamic law will be washed away. SB.- It should have been washed away by the Jakarta charter, or by former President Soekarno's stand who was hostile to an Indonesia based on the Islamic law, or even by Soeharto's presidency that pushed the issue out of the agenda. Why is it coming back today to haunt Indonesia? Is it the work of Indonesian people or is it the influence of what is going on elsewhere? AW.- You mean the Taleban (5)? Maybe. I am convinced that the election will prove that they do not have a lot of influence. If we win, by beating the money from the Middle East, from those fanatics, then the victory will be for good. SB.- What make you so confident that the issue will be solved once and for all this time? AW.- Because this election will result in a strengthened power. SB.- Right now, people are saying that the centre of the power seems very weak. Everyone is gearing up for the coming election, but in a loud cacophony. There are more than one hundred parties, and it looks that no single one will emerge as the take-all winner. Everyone will be a winner depending on how you look at it. But things will have to be sorted out after the election. Parties will need to cooperate and stop being negative about their opponents. What do you expect? AW.- Assuming our victory is conclusive, they will have to accept us. There is no other way. SB.- Are you confident that your party will be the corner stone of any coalition? AW.- Yes. Precisely. SB.- Do you expect to gather a nationwide majority? AW.- No, but a majority is not important to us, because our friend in this matter is the Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI), the party of Megawati Sukarnoputri (6). She shares our view on nationality. In fact, not only Megawati, but the majority of Indonesian shares our view. The Christians as well as the people with indigenous beliefs who are accounted for as Muslims but actually don’t really practice the religion. SB.- If I am correct, on the political side, your message is one of secularism, a nationalistic one. You are against the idea of a nation governed along religious lines, and everyone who share such belief should oppose the parties who support a revival of the religious question. As regards the economy, which is a very important part of the problems, although we can hear a lot of criticisms, we do not see much constructive propositions coming from the opponents of the present government. AW.- I think that until the result of the election, we live a transitional period. We have to do our best to accept the situation. Conflicts at that stage are counterproductive. SB.- Do you mean that the government should not launch any new economic initiative before the election, even though the situation is critical? AW.- Well we have for example the Minister of Cooperatives, Adi Sasono, telling us that we should focus on what he describes as the People’s Economy (7). We have to accept it because he is a Minister now, but later in the year he will not be Minister any more and we won't have to do it. SB.- So, you disagree with that sort of initiative. What is wrong with the People's Economy that is trying to break monopolies that have been targeted as the cause of the corruption and inefficiency of the Soeharto's system? AW.- We think that the current policy is a sham (8). SB.- In what respect? AW.- If we follow (Minister) Sasono's practice we will have to deviate from the international trade practice. This system, according to me, will not work. SB.- Do you think a better solution is to open without safeguard for the local population who considered that they have already lost out to the ethnic Chinese? What do you propose to have more of the national wealth transferred to the currently dispossessed local population? AW.- Yesterday, I called two economists: Dr. Sri Mulyani, who was educated in the United States, as well as Dr. Anwar Nasution, the Dean of the Indonesian Faculty of Economics (9). I asked what was their view. They have the most practical solutions to the nation’s economic problems. Our economy must be tied to the international economy in general. Although we may have a few things we need to do our own way, our economy should broadly be based on the market mechanism. In that sense, they would be able to drive our economy into the right track. SB.- Minister Sasono's underlying policies is, as you know, to rebalance the economy which is heavily weighted today in favour of conglomerates and monopolies. AW.- There is a need to rebalance the share of national wealth but, in my view, it cannot be done on the spot. We will need one or two generations. It cannot be done now because we need drastic measures just to rejoin the economic international order. SB.- Do you think that the New Economics Policy (NEP) implemented in Malaysia in the 1970's to have a fairer share of the national wealth redistributed is then an example to follow (10)? AW.- We will do it differently. We agree that we have to develop an affirmative policy to give more shares to the “indigenous” Indonesian, if you want. Either you can do it through government actions or you can do it by persuasion, step by step. SB.- Everyone would like to do it gently, that is by moral persuasion. But history taught us that it does not work like this. The have-not will not become more wealthy if the government does not clearly lay down a number of goals and guidelines… AW.- We do not have such policy, but it will be one of the key issues to solve in the future, so as to give more to the Malay Indonesian and the Melanesian Indonesian, more incentives and more role in the economy without disfranchising the Chinese Indonesian. It can only be done little by little. SB.- The Chinese Indonesian are in a state of shock and not much seems to be done to help them to recover from it… AW.- Yes, maybe as a community, the Chinese have lost their confidence. But you see, I have talked to the Chinese community leaders and they share our idea. SB.- Obviously, they can only agree with a society that is not geared up towards a Muslim world but it does not seem to be enough to give them any sense of what the future holds for them in Indonesia. AW- Maybe one of the first things we will have to do (after the election) is to send a delegation to Malaysia to ask them how they have succeeded. Most important we will ask the Malay businessmen to explain how they were able to develop without estranging the Chinese and we will ask the Chinese businessmen to explain how they could manage the situation with the increasing role of the Malays. SB.- Is there a consensus among the political class on the subject? You express the view that it must be done slowly, step by step, but there has been some call for more radical action, one way or another in fact. AW.- People want to go faster but they have to know that there are logical consequences to go through. You cannot force things in that matter. You cannot defranchise your own people. Even the Chinese government in Hong Kong lets Hong Kong develop as before. SB.- You are confident it will be done in an orderly fashion, but the feeling around is that there is very little common ground among the parties or the faction competing for the election. AW.- If it was the case, how can you explain that the leaders of the biggest banks and the leaders of the business community of Indonesia came to me? There is a common ground and I am confident that the doom sayers are wrong. We ask the Chinese to understand this. The calamity they face is felt by all, not only by the Chinese. SB.- The government has been trying to pass the same message, but it seems that it is not done loudly enough. Why? AW.- It is true that the government has not been very outspoken about it right now and it is not correct. SB.- Why can't it deliver a strong message? AW.- We feel that there is within the government people who believe that the Chinese must be given quote-unquote "lessons". But we say that the Chinese have already learned their lesson. There is no need for us to give more lessons. Now is the time to rebuilt the society, to begin anew. SB.- Was it necessary to try to destroy it in the first place? AW.- I can't answer such a question, but now is the time of reconciliation. To that aim what I have done is this: I went to Mr. Soeharto’s house (on December 19 1998) (11). I went to Mr. Habibie’s house, and I went to Pak Wiranto’s house (the Armed Forces Commander and Defense Minister). In essence what I did was to ask them to be patient and as wise as possible. Not to force things, to slow on one side. On the other side I asked the Chinese to think more about a reconciliation. SB.- A lot of rumours are going on about former President Soeharto. For some, he is still the power behind the scene. Others say that he has lost touch with the reality. In what sort of mood was he? AW.- Mr. Soeharto is an old professional. You cannot detect his inner feelings, but what is important is that he agrees with all my proposals. He already has decided in his heart that many things should be done, should be changed. But a professional will never confess that he should have done it before. SB.- If we discount the problem of the economic crisis, which was very much outside the control of Indonesia, what could the Soeharto regime have done better that you want to correct today? AW.- The right direction today is to instill a sense of nationhood in the economic system. SB.- But isn't it what Minister Sasono is trying to do with his so-called "People's Economy"? AW.- I believe in economic mechanisms, not in gimmicks. It does not matter whether foreigners or Indonesian are better at economics. To me, what is important is the mechanism and I know of only one. In economic matters, you have to show a profit. That is the bottom line. If you cannot show a profit, then you have no right to economic life. SB.- That is not what one would call a very religious point of view, unless economic matters are of a religious nature. That leads me to ask you what are the points that you share in common and the points you disagree with Amien Rais, a Muslim leader you oppose (12). AW.- We have to define which Amien Rais we are talking about. I know two Amien Rais. On the one hand, the Amien Rais who was secretary-general of his association, and on the other the chairman of a political party (PAN). The first one was a Muslim militant, a “ fundamentalist”, a radical. But now, since he has set up the PAN, Amien Rais has turned his back to the line he was following before. We have to be careful on this. We want to be sure that he will stick to the right path. The second Amien Rais has a lot of common ground with us. His new party has more or less been following the lines of my party. However, although he was denying it, we know from our own intelligence, that every Thursday night he was seeing Mr. Habibie. So, we feel it is an endorsement of Mr. Habibie’s policies. SB.- Does it matter so much? AW.- Since we do not know what is the purpose of such meetings, we have to assume that he is endorsing President Habibie's stands. Maybe Amien Rais wants to maintain the status-quo or still wants to go the Islamic way. This is why we have to be careful. SB.- I have never heard that President Habibie wants to go the Islamic way as you say. He is a religious man but never mentions such a political view and I see him rather as a secular minded person. AW.- Yes, he is a moderate but you know he can be the most dangerous person. Which Habibie are we talking about? Which Amien Rais do we deal with? We do not know what they have concocted. SB.- But seriously, what conspiracies are we dealing with? If you have doubts about Amien Rais who is a religious leader turned politician, can we put President Habibie in the same league and consider him as a "closet fundamentalist"? AW.- In politics, things can be done that we thought were impossible. Soeharto set up the Association of Muslim Intellectuals (ICMI) (13), in the last years of his power (in 1990). We could not believe it, because he was so nationalistic and suddenly he did it. It was a total surprise. SB.- There is, On this topic, quite a similarity with your neighbour, Malaysia. When Prime Minister Mahathir called Anwar Ibrahim in the cabinet, then propelled him to be his heir apparent, it was said that it was out of necessity, to bring fringe Muslim radicals into the main stream of politics. It did not alter the fundamental views of the government as regards the pluralistic society of Malaysia and the position of Islam in the state. Why should the idea have been different when ICMI was set up, actually at about the same time Prime Minister Mahathir extended an hand to the religious leaders in Malaysia. It could be a sign of maturity, couldn't it? AW.- Anwar Ibrahim took the nationalistic view. That, in politics, was the important point. In Malaysia, people are deeply nationalistic. But here, in Indonesia, after the brouhaha and the congress of the Development Unity Party (PPP), a federation of Islamic organizations, a number of people decided to go back to Islam as the basis of everything (15). There, we have a major difference. In Malaysia, you can trust people in UMNO but, today how can you trust PAN - Amin Rais' new political party? The people here have no track record or rather the wrong one. We are a bit like in Egypt. If you believe in the nationalistic view then you support President Mubarak. If not, you support the Muslim Brothers. SB. - So, more than any other argument, what you are telling me is that, beyond the finery of economic arguments, the main dividing line between you and Amien Rais or other Muslim parties is the position of the state towards the religion. In other words, is Indonesia going to stay nationalistic and therefore secular or is Indonesia going to be controlled by Muslims who want to turn it into a religious state? AW.- Yes, we believe that we have this line to cross or not to cross. But the question is totally irrelevant, that is why I feel confident. Even in Egypt, such fault line is starting to be sorted out. I learned recently that the radical Muslim leaders, after fifteen years in jail, have sent a letter to President Mubarak asking to be pardoned and recanting their position. They admit that they should no longer challenge the nationalistic constitution of Egypt. The nationalist view, to build a nation like ours, is the only tenable one. Winter 1999 Notes: 1.- Nahdlatul Ulama means "Awakening of the Ulamas". It is not a political party but a charitable and educational organization. The political arm of the organization is the National Awakening Party (PKB). It is said that Nahdlatul Ulama has the support of about 38 million members. 87% of the population is considered to adhere to the Muslim religion, but as Gus Dur himself points out in the interview, not all are practicing. 9% are either Protestant or Roman Catholic and about 2% Hindu and Buddhist. But those percentages are national statistics. At the local level, the influence of one religion or another varies greatly. For example, Bali is basically an Hindu/Buddhist culture while Java is dominated by a Muslim culture. 2.- About only 6,000 islands are inhabited. There are 24 provinces, 2 special regions and one special capital city district. 3.- Under the Japanese occupation the Indonesian nationalists were allowed to organize in order to prevent the Dutch from returning to their former territories. Indonesia declared independence on August 17, 1945. Soekarno became the first President. A war with Holland followed, during which British troops were also involved. It was only on 27 December 1949, that Indonesia, under a UN agreement, became legally recognized by the Netherlands. During the fifties, the government had to face several rebellions, including a move by Muslim communities in Sulawesi and West Java to establish an Islamic state. In the early 1960s, a pointless confrontation occurred with Malaysia, Indonesia opposing the integration of Sarawak and Sabah, on the East coast of Borneo, into the Federation of Malaysia. 4.- Ernest Renan (1823-1892), French writer. The ethnic divisions are Javanese 45%, Sundanese 14%, Madurese 7.5%, costar Malays 7.5%, others 26%. 5.- The radical Muslim group that took over most of Afghanistan. 6.- She is the daughter of the first president, Soekarno. 7.- Adi Sasono, 56, a Javanese, was the Secretary-General of the Indonesian Association of Muslim Intellectuals (ICMI), when President Habibie asked him to take over the Ministry of Cooperatives and Small Enterprises. Adi Sasono was an executive member of Golkar, but he has left the party and said that he will not campaign for it, cutting short rumors that he was using public funds (his ministry has received 18 trillion to help small businesses and is expected to get a further 20 trillion for 1999) to gain political mileage for the Golkar. It is said that Adi Sasono would give moral support to a new party, Partai Daulat Rakyat (PDR) that will target the lower classes, such as street vendors and small vendors, cutting into the constituency of the National Awakening Party (PKB), the political arm of Adburrahmann Wahid's Nahdlatul Ulama and the National Mandate Party (PAN) of Amien Rais. 8.- However, it is a fact that the DPR has been debating a monopoly bill. The draft limits a company's market share at 50% at the provincial level. Companies would be given one year to meet the requirement once the new law is enacted. Besides BULOG, which is a state agency, the main target is Indofood, now controlled by a Japanese company (Nissin Food Corp) and First Pacific Corp (controlled by the Salim family). Indofood has a near monopoly in wheat-flour processing, a 60% share of the market for branded cooking oil and 90% of the instant-noodle market. The proposed monopoly law is also expected to ban vertical integration whereby a company controls the entire production process from producing raw materials right to distributing the final product. 9.- See interview of President Habibie with Asian Affairs 10.- See Asian Affairs interview with Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad. 11.- See comments by President Habibie on the so-called reconciliation committee. 12.- Amien Rais was the leader of a Muslim organization known as Muhammadyah (way of Muhammad) said to have the support of about 28 million Muslims, mainly in urban areas, while Nahdlatul Ulama network is mainly in rural areas. He is relinquishing his position to lead the National Mandate Party (PAN). He was also a member of the Board of experts Chairmanship of the Indonesian Association of Muslim Intellectuals (ICMI) where he was appointed by Habibie (who was instrumental in the setting-up of ICMI) in December 1990. He was then a political-science lecturer at Yogyakarta's Gajah Mada University. He resigned his appointment at ICMI in March 1997. 13.- The Indonesian Association of Muslim Intellectuals (ICMI) was set up in December 1990. Its first meeting, chaired by Habibie, was held at Malang (East Java). Its creation marked a break with the military's longstanding opposition to Islamic political activity. From the beginning, Habibie brought a diverse membership into ICMI and was criticized for doing so. It was said in particular that ICMI played a significant role in gathering the urbanized Muslims - which may explain the position of Adburrahmann Wahid. ICMI established the Centre for Information and Development Studies (Cides) which was Habibie's think-tank. Former CIDES and ICMI members today form Habibie's kitchen cabinet. | |||
 | | | |