The Jakarta Post, July 18, 2007
Raising the flag is just an expression of anger
Iwan Gunawan, Jakarta
The administration of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono seemed to be irritated by
independence aspirations reflected in the display of separatist flag in Ambon and
Papua.
Such aspirations have been visible in Aceh, with former rebels proposing a local party
which chooses their old flag as the party's symbol.
But Vice President Jusuf Kalla was quick to deny the administration had ever
approved the request.
In response to the expression, a political party that claims to be nationalistic said
those incidents would not have occurred had they still been in power.
So should the nation be concerned about the flag-displaying trend?
From the administration's point of view, the issue should raise public concern
regarding it's ability to solve serious national problems.
If the government fails to be decisive in its handling of the impacts of the Sidoarjo
mudflow or in pursuing major corruption cases, why should we expect to see
punishment for those raising a flag which was not a crime in the first place?
Even if the administration is successful in building a legal case against those involved
in the display of separatist group-linked symbols, critics would zero-in on the fact that
we can steal state assets and walk free -- but to show political aspiration in public is
an offense.
From the perspective of the nation, this trend should force us to ask if there we have a
healthy state of central-regional relations in this country.
Indonesia's people, its politicians and bureaucrats ignore the fact that provinces are
not just administrative sub-units in a one-way top-down command system.
In fact, many of the regions in the country were sovereign territories before and during
the colonial period. When independence was declared at the end of World War II in
1945, the regions did not think twice about committing themselves to the new
Republic of Indonesia.
What is often underestimated is while the allegiance may be circumstantial given the
window of opportunity for independence at that time, it was not without reciprocal
expectations.
In other words, the regions agreed to be part of the Republic with an expectation they
would be an inherent part of any important decision making of the country.
For more than three decades under the New Order regime, however, regional
participations in critical decision making were nearly absent.
Decisions were made by one man along with "elected" representatives (from the
regions as well) pretending to deliberate -- only to finally endorse any decision of the
president.
Today's decisions are made through painful procedures of democracy, but genuine
participation of the regions in critical decision making remains absent.
State budgets are negotiated between the executive and the legislative, both of which
are controlled by centralistic political elites.
The Regional Representative Council (DPD) is the more genuine representatives of the
people and was born in 2004 -- but the centralist elites were unwilling to give it a role
in critical decision making.
Local elites were awarded a political space to contest their own elections, but only if
they were loyal to the central party board.
And "loyalty" today is always associated with a "financial contribution" to the central
board.
If all avenues for genuine regional and local aspirations are blocked by centralistic and
elitist politics, the display of a separatist flag by the regionalists is actually a healthy
way out.
No one has really been hurt, and they certainly did not take the financial pie the
administration and the parties are fighting over.
Political parties and party candidates raise their flags almost everyday, often using
public money and without question occupying public spaces.
So why are the nationalists so worried about the "separatist" flags?
Some observers say the incidents would not threaten national integrity. They simply
reflect the ability of those behind the move to win the hearts and minds of the
population in regions that are tired of the dominance of the elites in Jakarta.
There seem to be several options the nations can consider in balancing the interests
of the regionalists and the nationalists.
First, local elections for mayors, regents and governors could be made more open to
local and regional candidates.
The 7 percent threshold for parties to name candidates should be removed and
independent candidates should instead be allowed to contest.
The risk of potential deadlocks in local parliamentary processes if this option is
pursued is a myth. In reality, there is no genuine opposition or coalition in this country
anyway.
Pursuing this option would at least fully open the regional political space within the
corridor of Indonesian democracy, even to the flag raisers.
Secondly, the DPD can be genuinely involved in critical decision making.
It needs a full legislative mandate, even if in the end it has a smaller number of votes
compared with the House of Representatives.
This option would allow the regions to transparently see how their aspirations are
taken up in the national political decision making process.
The debates over whether Indonesia subscribes to unicameral, bicameral or tricameral
parliamentary system is rather irrelevant at this stage. Indonesia is good at creating
hybrid systems anyway.
Thirdly, regional symbols have been a part of this nation since its beginning -- a flag is
only part of it.
Had Abdurrahman Wahid been in office, he would have encouraged other regions to
have their own flags -- not just Aceh, Maluku and Papua.
The presence of regional symbols will only better reflect the diversity of social
identities of this great country. This option would at least make "illegal" flag-waving
become legal and would allow our security and intelligence to focus their energies on
criminals and terrorists.
Unfortunately, the harsh reality is any of these changes depend on the willingness of
the 550 House members and the administration to push for genuine reform.
The reform movement put up a modern infrastructure of democracy with better
elections and institutions. But if the nationalist politicians in the parties and the
administration opt to keep on with horse trading and money politics, then perhaps
raising regional flags is actually a healthy way of showing regional aspirations.
The writer teaches regional development studies at the University of Indonesia and
Bogor Institute of Agriculture.
All contents copyright © of The Jakarta Post.
|
