Lessons from Indonesia?
MARCH 24 came and went quietly. There was no public recollection of General Ershad's military take-over which replaced the elected civilian government of Justice Sattar on March 24, 1982. The coup d'etat of 1982 was not a huge surprise since General Ershad had been contemplating loudly the need for involvement of military in running the affairs of politics. He published an article in the weekly Holiday on that subject and days before his take-over, he sent a team of generals to Indonesia to learn how Indonesia worked under President Suharto.
In Ershad's mind, it can be surmised, there were lessons to be drawn from Indonesia.
Since the intervention of the January 11, 2007, a systematic campaign has been launched to discredit not only corrupt politicians but also politicians as such and their preferred political system, parliamentary democracy. Ideas of changing the constitution, setting up of a National Security Council, creating checks and balances between the president and the prime minister and so on have put democracy, nay, civilian rule on trial.
The promises of turning power back to the elected government are viewed by many with skepticism. The moment a military official or a man in position of power suggests that western democracy is not suitable for Bangladesh and that we need our own brand of democracy, one has good reason to be concerned. There is nothing wrong with that proposition if it comes from the pen of a political analyst. It is an important point which needs to be analysed and debated. However, in the perception of a lay person such statements added with promotion in ranks and an extension of tenure, not to mention increasing visibility create doubts.
When military intervention took place in Indonesia in 1965-66 General Suharto just did not go to Istana to replace Sukarno, Indonesia's father of the nation; rather Sukarno in failing health with an ailing economy gave Suharto more power to sort out unrest in the military who in turn helped himself into power slowly. That was the Indonesian or Javanese political culture. The choreographed moves were step by step as if in a shadow play.
Suharto consolidated his power, and ruled Indonesia for 32 years. In the first half of his rule Indonesia prospered thanks to 1973-74 price rise of petrol which Indonesia exported. Poverty rate was brought down, literacy rate improved, but Indonesia remained oligarchic. Suharto and his family had monopoly over the economy. The system looked stable but remained inherently weak. Corruption eroded the very basis of the regime. As the Asian financial crisis of 1997 ruined Indonesian economy, students and the people began to demonstrate on the streets demanding Suharto's ouster. General Wiranto, Suharto's army chief, refused to shoot, even some of the cabinet members withdrew their support for the regime. Suharto had to leave.
Suharto handed over power to his vice president, B.J. Habibie, who ruled tenuously for a year. But people of Indonesia wanted democracy and nothing less. Following the election in June 1999, Abdur Rahman Wahid (popularly known as Gus Dur) became the president. Not just near blind in eyes, but, sadly, blind to corruption, Gus Dur's tenure too was short-lived. Following allegations of corruption he was eased out and his vice president, Megawati, daughter of Sukarno, became the president of the world's largest Muslim country in July 2001. Successful as an opposition leader, she too wavered as president. In 2004 when she lost to Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, Indonesia had a popularly elected president.
Indonesia's economy is doing well under democracy .
What's the parallel, if any? In Bangladesh, the Suharto regime was launched by General Zia, who like Suharto in the initial days was honest, forthright, and development-oriented. General Ershad's rule mirrored the Suharto regime in the later phase, a phase of corruption with development. However, the rule of Begum Zia with her 4-party alliance was the apogee of Suharto rule in Bangladesh. This was Suharto's predatory regime of the 1990s. Mr. Tarique Rahman became Mr. Tommy Suharto of Bangladesh, with sprawling business interests, influence, and public display of wealth. Some may dispute this claim by role reversal, arguing that Mr. Tommy Suharto was becoming the Tarique Zia of Indonesia.
Bangladeshi generals, like Wiranto, are honest, professional soldiers, and, let us hope, like Wiranto will opt out of politics. Bangladeshis, like their Indonesian brothers and sisters, will make a commitment to democracy and order, consolidating the gains of the past regimes and not tarnish all politicians as corrupt with a broad brush.
In Bangladesh as a nationlet's admitwe have shown enormous inclination toward injustice. There have been several historic examples of such inclinations. We have failed to bring the war criminals to book, we have postponed, delayed, gerrymandered the trial of assassination of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, as well as that of the jail murder of the national leaders. In recent history, justice is still awaiting the murders of Ahsanullah Master, an opposition of MP, and of S.A.M.S. Kibria, a distinguished public servant, politician and a finance minister who served the nation with unrivalled honesty and dedication.
"Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible; man's inclination toward injustice makes democracy necessary." These words of wisdom of Reinhold Niebuhr, the late American theologian are worth pondering by all at this juncture. Democracy and nothing but democracy becomes the need of the hour.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments