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

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?