Michael Vatikiotis | 18 Jan 2008 | Opinionasia.org

With the passing of Suharto, many will be tempted to declare a close to the authoritarian chapter of Indonesian history. So long as Suharto lived, there was no hope of closure or compensation for the more egregious excesses of his three decade-rule because of the impunity he enjoyed. Now that he is gone, the danger is that people will all too easily forget and lull themselves into believing that Indonesia is on an irreversible course to freedom, equality and justice.

Sadly, this goal is far from assured. For a political culture that nurtures selfish, corrupt elites and tends to ignore or trample on popular demands for justice and equality, remains very much in place. Democracy as a system has been in effect for a decade, but democracy as a belief, is still rather tenuous.

How are we to be assured otherwise when the sitting vice president describes democracy as a means and not a goal of national development; or when no one can be held accountable for the mudflow from a rogue gas field owned by an influential family that has displaced tens of thousands in East Java; or when no one is punished for the murder of a prominent human rights activist. The tenacious survival of what Indonesians call the “feudal mentality” helps explain the historical cycle of revolution, liberation, dictatorship, leading eventually back to revolt and liberation which has characterised the past sixty years.

Indonesia’s founding President Sukarno led a revolution that established one of Asia’s youngest multi-party democracies at independence in 1949; the 1955 general election is still considered a benchmark expression of popular will. But Sukarno’s vanity and bombast convinced him that his leadership was sufficient to guide the country, and democracy withered and died. In 1965, General Suharto seized the reins of power amid protests and student unrest calling for an end to Sukarno’s dictatorship.

Two decades later, a new generation of students was calling Suharto the dictator, and another ten years on in 1998, he was forced from power after students occupied parliament allowing his cabinet to abandon him and the army to withdraw support. The period since then has generated hope that the country’s political system is firmly on a democratic path. One optimistic sign has been the ability to vote in and vote out a series of chief executives – four presidents in a decade compared to just two in the preceding half century.Elections have been held freely and fairly at all levels and the army has retreated from the political arena. So why worry about the future?

It is virtually a truism in Southeast Asia that elections are not a good measure of democratic health. Look at Thailand where more than a decade of democratic advancement that most observers confidently considered a corner turned, ended in a military coup. In Indonesia, there has never been a tradition of military coups, but there is a long history of patronage and paternalism that has tended to concentrate wealth in the hands of a few who squander national resources that could be deployed to benefit the many.

What Indonesia desperately needs to establish is a system of governance that cares for all of its citizens and nurtures a culture of equality. What use is a democracy when many ordinary Indonesians remember that Suharto the authoritarian delivered welfare and prosperity, yet in Jakarta today - where the city governor is now elected - low income families suffer higher levels of chronic malnourishment and disease than a decade ago.

As the late writer and social critic Y.B. Mangunwijaya once sadly observed: “The little man in Indonesia will only be helped by the power of the outside world because in Indonesian culture, there is no tradition of helping the little man.” It would be comforting to believe that the decade Suharto spent in virtual isolation at his Jakarta home after his fall was justice of sorts for a man who allowed the country to descend into violence and ruin, because he could not bring himself to let a little light into the system.

But instead, the ailing Suharto commanded strong loyalty and respect from the majority of people who now lead the country – many of whom rushed to his bedside each time he was hospitalised because they owe their wealth and position to his patronage. Why last year he even won a libel case against Time Magazine over an article alleging that he and his family had illegally amassed billions of dollars and stashed them overseas.

Instead of fretting over the old dictator’s residual power, it would be more constructive to focus on the obstacles that lie ahead. For no matter how freely and fairly the next president is elected, if social justice is not delivered we will surely see signs of the old political cycle that has burdened Indonesia since independence; protests, prompting crackdowns, the promulgation of emergency powers in the interests of stability, and eventually dictatorship. Isn’t this just what happened in the 1960s when Sukarno faced popular demands for reform and offered his people rhetoric instead of rice?

Let us not allow the passing of Suharto to pull the wool over our eyes and lull us into a false sense of security. Let us instead worry about the future and prevent the country’s current and future leaders from assuming they can benefit from Indonesia’s abundant riches without sharing the wealth, and governing in the interests of all, rather than a few.