The Orientation of Democracy: Wanting to Be Like America, But Too Shy

Published in Inilah.com
(Indonesia) on 6 June 2011
by Derek Manangka & Muchlis Hasyim (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Nadia Bulkin. Edited by Mark DeLucas.
The United States always acts as a reference. Like it or don’t like it, think of it as an ally or an enemy, we always pay close attention to every development and trend that takes place in that superpower country.

There is a unique factor with respect to Indonesia. Indonesia’s political posture toward the United States is actually unclear and has no pattern. Indonesia’s orientation is half-there and not clear. To the world, it’s as if it claims to have a democratic system unique to Indonesia, because we have the Pancasila as the basis of the nation — even though in reality, Indonesia is actually a democratic system oriented toward the United States. Where is the proof?

To be honest, there is no politician brave enough to admit that at the beginning of the reformation when the People’s Consultative Assembly passed an amendment to the 1945 Constitution, democratic concepts from the U.S.' Republican and Democratic Parties served as the reference.

Those two U.S. political parties each have representatives in the form of NGOs in Indonesia. Through those NGOs, Indonesian tutors that have already been taught by drafters of democracy — a la Americans — give directives to change Indonesian laws regarding political parties.

Those changes to the law resulted in a system of general elections — a la America — being enacted in Indonesia. The general legislative election and the presidential election of 2004 were the first political events to adopt the United States' system. It’s true that it’s not 100 percent the same. What’s clear is that it was not only the president and vice president that were chosen directly, but also members of the People’s Representative Council, members of the Regional Representative Council, governors, regents and mayors, following the United States' system.

The result is that our mindset about democracy these days is more greatly influenced by the United States' system. Its influence remains strong because U.S. alumni in various government institutions, including mass media, join in to strengthen that chemistry. What’s also a fact is that except for President B.J. Habibie, all Indonesian presidents, starting from Sukarno all the way to SBY, have had their politics oriented toward Washington!

The first Indonesian president was already close to the United States from the beginning. Sukarno was close to the United States because he knew that when the commander of the U.S. Army in the Pacific, Gen. Douglas MacArthur, was stationed in Australia, he had thought about freeing Indonesia from Japan before attacking Tokyo. However, before that could come to pass, Japan departed from Indonesia. Japan left Indonesia after the United States dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the first week of August 1945. The “vacuum” that was left by Japan was made use of by Sukarno. The Indonesian duumvirate declared Indonesia’s independence on Aug. 17, 1945.

On Oct. 20, 1945, Sukarno went to Washington and met with U.S. President Harry Truman, a sign of Indonesia’s first orientation toward the United States. Sukarno strengthened U.S. support for Indonesian independence that was not yet completely acknowledged by the Netherlands.

This Indonesia-U.S. connection worsened during the era of President Dwight Eisenhower (1958-1961). According to “Bung Karno, the Extension of the People’s Tongue,” by U.S. journalist Cindy Adams, the Indonesian Proclaimer was very offended by the actions of President Eisenhower at the White House when Sukarno was ordered to wait like an ordinary guest. Sukarno was offended and finally left the White House without saying goodbye. So the change of orientation away from the United States was caused more by the Indonesian president’s personal problems. The Indonesia-U.S. connection improved somewhat when John F. Kennedy replaced Eisenhower. However, Kennedy was unlucky. His government was very short, because he was killed by a mysterious shooter in Dallas, Texas. Indonesia’s orientation toward the United States also did not continue.

During the Suharto era, Indonesia’s orientation toward the United States was very clear. Indonesia was in one anti-communist bloc with the United States. Indonesia’s invasion of Portuguese Timor (East Timor) in December 1975 took place because Indonesia and the United States shared the same orientation.

U.S. President Gerald Ford made a special point to fly from Washington to meet Suharto in Jakarta to signal his approval of that invasion. Indonesia was pushed to invade Portuguese Timor because there was worry that that small territory in the middle of Indonesia could become communist, since Portugal was governed by a communist regime in 1975.

Indonesia’s orientation to the United States became increasingly clear when almost all the oil fields, a huge resource in Indonesia, were ruled by U.S. companies. Indonesia was also united by the Palapa satellite, which uses U.S. technology.

Only President B.J. Habibie did not have the opportunity to orient toward the United States, because the span of his government was too short. But as a technocrat, if Habibie had had the time, even he might have chosen to orient toward the United States. President Abdurrahman Wahid had a different method of orientation. He made U.S. President Bill Clinton double up with laughter at the White House.

Megawati Sukarnoputri became the first Indonesian president to meet three times with a U.S. president in less than three-and-a-half years: first in Washington (2001), then in Bali (2002) and lastly in New York (2003). The first foreign head of state to meet Megawati was also the U.S. president.

And with Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono? He was the first Indonesian president who was not ashamed to admit as an Indonesian citizen that he considered the United States to be his second homeland. But for whatever reason, our leader is included among the presidents that were mentioned earlier: If faced with a question regarding our political posture toward the United States, on average he answers with a hazy sentence.

That answer and that posture become increasingly unclear when the United States is the country that most diligently defends Israel against its Palestinian enemy. We often try to exhibit relatively high solidarity with Palestine, and to acknowledge that, we have to display an attitude that is contrary to the United States.

It’s the same issue when talking about the problem of Islam. It is not rare for our intellectuals and elite politicians to portray the United States as an enemy of Islam. Oftentimes, Islam collides with the United States or vice versa.

Another fairly ridiculous thing is the attitude that portrays Indonesia as such a giant country that it doesn’t worry about being pressured by the United States. It’s suggested that we could even be like Vietnam and Cambodia, which in 1975 drove the United States out of Asia.

We are aware that, technologically and militarily, we are not capable of that. So, those statements are only illusions. For example, we don’t have the ability to stop U.S. Navy submarines from moving along the Sunda Strait, the Lombok Strait and even the Maluku Strait. But we covered up that inability so that we are not oriented toward the United States.

It is the same with the way we dishonestly adopt political, economic or even democratic systems. If that dishonesty is for the sake of preserving the nation’s dignity, well, all right. But it will be very dangerous if we continue to protect that dishonesty — even more so if we are not honest and not brave enough to decide the direction of our democracy.

If we remain like this, Indonesia will be a nation that is not brave enough to take a stance — a nation that is not brave enough to adopt a better system. If circumstances indeed necessitate us to orient ourselves toward the United States, why are we embarrassed to do it?



Amerika Serikat selalu menjadi rujukan. Suka ataupun tidak suka, baik kawan maupun lawan, selalu mencermati setiap perkembangan dan trend yang terjadi di negara adi daya itu.

Dalam hal Indonesia, ada yang unik. Sikap politik Indonesia terhadap Amerika Serkat (AS), sebetulnya tidak jelas dan tidak terpola. Kiblat Indonesia antara ada dan tidak jelas. Kepada dunia, seolah mengaku memiliki sistem demokrasi yang khas Indonesia. Sebab kita punya Pancasila sebagai dasar negara. Padahal di dalam kenyataannya, Indonesia sebetulnya sistem demokrasi berkiblat kepada AS. Mana buktinya?

Sejujurnya tidak ada politisi yang berani mengaku, bahwa ketika pada awal reformasi, MPR melakukan amandeman terhadap UUD '45, yang dijadikan rujukan adalah konsep-konsep demokrasi dari Partai Republik dan Partai Demokrat AS.

Dua partai politik di AS itu masing-masing punya perwakilan berbentuk LSM di Indonesia. Lewat LSM itulah para tutor orang Indonesia yang sudah dilatih oleh konseptor demokrasi ala Amerika, memberi arahan agar Undang-undang Partai Politik di Indonesia diubah.

Perubahan UU itu menghasilkan sistem pemilihan umum secara langsung ala Amerika dilaksanakan di Indonesia. Pemilu Legislatif dan Pilpres 2004, merupakan event politik pertama yang mengadopsi sistem AS. Bahwa tidak seratus persen sama, ada benarnya. Yang jelas tidak hanya Presiden dan Wakil Presiden yang dipilih langsung tetapi termasuk para anggota DPR, anggota DPD, Gubernur, Bupati dan Walikota, mengikuti sistem AS.

Akibatnya pola pikir tentang demokrasi akhir-akhir ini lebih banyak dipengaruhi oleh sistem AS. Pengaruhnya semain kuat sebab alumni AS berada di berbagai lembaga pemerintah, termasuk media massa, ikut memperkuat chemistry tersebut. Yang juga sudah menjadi fakta, kecuali Presiden BJ Habibie, semua Presiden RI, mulai dari Soekarno sampai dengan SBY kiblat politik mereka, Washington!

Presiden pertama RI, sejak awal, sudah mendekat ke AS. Soekarno mendekat karena ia tahu, Panglima Tentara AS di Pasifik, Jenderal Douglas MacArthur sewaktu bermarkas di Australia, pernah berpikir sebelum menyerang Tokyo, terlebih dahulu membebaskan Indonesia dari Jepang. Namun belum sempat hal itu dilakukan, Jepang sudah angkat kaki dari Indonesia.
Jepang meninggalkan Indonesia setelah K Hiroshima dan Nagasaki pada minggu pertama Agustus 1945, dijatuhi bom nuklir oleh AS. "Kekosongan" yang ditinggalkan Jepang itu, dimanfaatkan Soekarno-Hatta. Dwi tunggal RI itu mendeklarasikan kemerdekaan RI pada 17 Agustus 1945.

Pada 20 Oktober 1945, Soekarno melawat ke Washington dan bertemu dengan Presiden AS Harry Truman, sebagai tanda kiblat awal Indonesia ke AS. Lawatan Soekarno memperkuat dukungan AS atas kemerdekaan RI yang belum sepenuhnya diakui oleh Belanda.

Hubungan RI-AS memburuk di era Presiden Dwight Eisenhower (1958 - 1961). Menurut "Bung Karno Pernyambung Lidah Rakyat", karya wartawati AS, Cindy Adams, Proklamator RI sangat tersinggung oleh perlakuan Presiden Eisenhower di Gedung Putih, Soekarno disuruh menunggu layaknya tamu biasa. Soekarno pun tersinggung dan akhirnya meninggalkan Gedung Putih tanpa pamit. Sehingga perubahan kiblat dari AS lebih disebabkan oleh persoalan pribadi Presiden RI.
Hubungan RI - AS agak membaik ketika John F Kennedy menggantikan Eisenhower. Namun malang bagi Kennedy. Pemerintahannya sangat singkat, karena dia dibunuh oleh penembak misterius di Dallas, Texas. Kiblat RI ke AS pun tak berlanjut.

Di era Soeharto kiblat Indonesia ke AS sangat jelas. Indonesia berada dalam satu blok anti komunis dengan AS. Invasi yang dilakukan Indonesia ke Timor Portugis (Timor Timur - Timor Leste) pada Desember 1975 terjadi karena adanya kesamaan kiblat.

Presiden AS Gerald Ford, bahkan secara khusus terbang dari Washington menemui Soeharto di Jakarta untuk menandai restu invasi tersebut. Indonesia didorong menginvasi Timor Portugis, karena kuatir wilayah kecil yang ada di tengah Indonesia itu, dapat menjadi wilayah komunis. Sebab Portugal pada 1975 diperintah rezim komunis.

Kiblat RI ke AS bertambah jelas ketika hampir semua ladang minyak, tambang raksasa di Indonesia, dikuasai pengusaha AS. Indonesia juga dipersatukan oleh satelit Palapa, yang menggunakan teknologi AS.

Hanya Presiden BJ Habibie yang tidak sempat berkiblat ke AS. Karena masa pemerintahannya terlalu singkat, Tapi sebagai teknolog, jika Habibie punya waktu, diapun mungkin akan memilih kiblat ke AS. Presiden Aburrahman Wahid, caranya berkiblat lain. Ia membuat Presiden AS Bill Clinton terpingkal-pingkal di Gedung Putih.

Megawati Soekarnoputri, menjadi Presiden pertama RI yang bertemu 3 kali dengan Presiden AS dalam kurun waktu 3,5 tahun. Pertama di Washington (2001), Kedua di Bali (2002) dan ketiga di New York (2003). Kepala negara asing pertama yang ditemui Megawati, juga Presiden AS.

Bagaimana dengan SBY? Inilah Presiden pertama RI yang tidak segan-segan mengaku sebagai warna negara Indonesia yang menganggap AS sebagai tanah air keduanya. Namun entah mengapa, pemimpin kita termasuk para presiden yang disebutkan terdahulu, kalau sudah dihadapkan pada pertanyaan bagaimana sikap politik kita terhadap AS, rata-rata menjawab dengan kalimat abu-abu.

Jawaban dan sikap itu bahkan semakin tidak jelas ketika posisi AS ditempatkan sebagai negara yang paling getol membela Israel dalam permusuhannya dengan Palestina. Kita seringkali berusaha menunjukkan solidaritas yang demikian tinggi kepada Palestina dan untuk pembenarannya, kita harus memperlihatkan sikap yang tidak suka kepada AS.

Sama halnya ketika berbicara tentang persoalan Islam. Tidak jarang para intelektual dan elit politisi kita menempatkan AS sebagai musuh Islam. Sering kali Islam dibenturkan kepada AS atau sebaliknya.

Yang juga cukup menggelikan, adanya sikap yang memperlihatkan Indonesia sebagai negara raksasa. Sehingga tidak kuatir untuk ditekan AS. Dikesankan, kitapun bisa seperti Vietnam dan Kamboja, yang pada 1975 mengusir AS dari Asia.

Padahal secara teknologi dan kekuatan militer, kita sadar, kita tidak mampu. Jadi pernyataan itu hanya semu. Karena kita misalnya tidak punya kemampuan mencegah kapal-kapal selam dari armada AS melewati Selat Sunda, Selat Lombok bahkan Selat Malaka? Tapi ketidak mampuan itu, kita tutupi, bahwa kita tidak berkiblat ke AS.

Sama dengan cara kita yang tidak jujur di dalam mengadopsi sistem politik, ekonomi ataupun demokrasi. Kalau ketidakjujuran itu demi sebuah martabat bangsa, yah tidak apa-apa. Tetapi akan sangat berbahaya kalau ketidak jujuran itu terus kita pelihara. Apalagi kita tidak jujur dan tidak berani mau menentukan kemana kiblat demokrasi kita.

Jika begini, Indonesia akan menjadi bangsa yang tidak berani bersikap. Bangsa yang tidak berani mengadopsi sebuah sistem yang lebih baik. Kalau memang keadaan mengharuskan berkiblat ke AS, mengapa malu?
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Turkey: Musk versus the Machine: Disrupting the 2-Party System

Japan: The Role of a Diplomatic Attitude To Maintain the International Order

Sri Lanka: Is America Moving toward the Far Right?

Sri Lanka: Epstein Files, Mossad and Kompromat Diplomacy

Turkey: Conflicting Messages to Syria: US Supports Integrity while Israel Attacks

Topics

Turkey: Conflicting Messages to Syria: US Supports Integrity while Israel Attacks

Japan: The Role of a Diplomatic Attitude To Maintain the International Order

Russia: The 3rd-Party Idea as a Growing Trend*

Germany: Trump’s Tariffs: China Acts, Europe Reacts

Germany: Trump Is Capable of Learning

Germany: Nerve-Wracking Back and Forth

Indonesia: Trump Needs a Copy Editor

Indonesia: Trump’s Chaos Strategy Is Hurting His Allies, Not Just His Rivals

Related Articles

Portugal: Kissinger: Beyond Good and Evil*

India: When Biden’s Away

U.A.E.: Why Xi and Biden’s G-20 Meeting Was a Masterclass in Deescalation

China: Long-Awaited Scene between China and the US Gives the World Relief