Page 17 - SCANDAL AND DEMOCRACY

2 Introduction

pelted with stones. At some point during their struggle for survival under Suharto,
2
members of the press had lost their nerve and, in turn, had taught this fear to the
Indonesian people—perpetuating, consciously or not, the power of the regime.
3
Now, after so many years of accommodating New Order dictates, Luwarso said
he was not surprised that many in both media and government feared that removing
restraints would lead to chaos. This was natural, he said, just as it is natural for one
who has been in the dark for a long time to be afraid of the light. But if the mentality
of the nation’s leaders did not change, and if the press itself did not demand com-
prehensive legal reforms, “this era animated by the spirit of reform will become an
absurd repetition of the past.”
4
The views expressed in this forum offer a snapshot of the challenges the Indo-
nesian media would face during the country’s transition to democracy, revealing the
burden of Indonesia’s authoritarian past as well as the promise of its democratic
future. As eyewitnesses to the nation’s turbulent history, many of these journalists
had already seen the overthrow of an earlier dictatorship give way to Suharto’s thirty
years of authoritarian rule, thus lending gravity to Luwarso’s warning that the current
spirit of reform could be “an absurd repetition of the past.” Suharto’s New Order had
lasted two full generations by embedding itself in constitution, law, and bureaucracy,
while inserting itself into the language, media, and mentality of ordinary citizens and
educated elites, journalists included. The pervasiveness of authoritarian values within
Indonesian society, moreover, meant that democratic reform would require not only
regime change but also a transformation of the country’s political culture—thus lend-
ing particular significance to the work of the media.

Global Context
Though their focus was Indonesia, these journalists were addressing the chief
problem facing similar democratic transitions worldwide: an inherent tendency to
revert to authoritarian rule. Over the past quarter century, as crowds have toppled
dozens of dictatorial regimes from Manila to Berlin, from Warsaw to Cairo, we have
learned a simple lesson: democratic uprisings are relatively easy, almost common-
place, but successful transitions to enduring democracies are diffi cult and rare.
The moment of regime change sparks tremendous hope among both participants
and international observers who anticipate the emergence of a more open, democratic
society. Yet once a dictator has fallen, the most difficult question remains: How will the
newly democratizing nation avoid reversing course, reverting to authoritarian solu-
tions for the daunting problems brought by the transition? In Eastern Europe, central
Asia, and much of the Middle East, this question has gained increasing salience as
one democratic transition after another has given way to renewed authoritarian rule.
Indeed, the tendency toward reversal is evident in any environment where the condi-
tions that enabled authoritarianism are still in place. In Indonesia’s transition, such
conditions included judicial corruption, electoral fraud, a politicized military, elite
rent seeking, and executive machinations to retain power. Rather than fleeing into
exile, moreover, Suharto ceded power to a handpicked successor and retired to his
luxurious compound in Central Jakarta to enjoy his grandchildren, his pet tiger, and
access to an estimated $40 billion in accrued assets.
5
Though tainted by the regime’s corruption, Suharto’s political machine had not
lost power. Instead, with his loyal protégé at the helm, Suharto’s long-ruling Golkar
party retained control of both the executive and the legislature, providing a ready path