For Malaysia and Indonesia, Very Different Paths to the Future
International Herald Tribune
November 2, 1993
Philip Bowring    

The Malay world has a reputation for fluid and undogmatic politics in which pluralism and authoritarianism mix, often creatively. But recent days have seen Indonesia and Malaysia demonstrate fundamental political differences which show the contribution that open and democratic institutions can make to political transition and so to long-term stability.

In Malaysia, Finance Minister Anwar Ibrahim will be voted in on Thursday as deputy president of the United Malays National Organization, or UMNO, the dominant player in the coalition of ethnic-based parties that has ruled Malaysia since independence in 1957. Mr. Anwar had challenged Deputy Prime Minister Ghafar Baba, 68, for the No. 2 slot in the party, which is holding its triennial assembly this week.

Support for Mr. Anwar proved so overwhelming that Mr. Ghafar, despite his seniority and decades of dedicated service to the party, was forced to withdraw in favor of the rising star 20 years his junior.

Mr. Anwar, a Muslim activist in his youth, joined UMNO little over a decade ago. He shifted easily from religious and intellectual support to the new world of the upwardly mobile, money-oriented urban business and professional classes.

Mr. Anwar had long been considered the heir apparent of Prime Minister Mahathir bin Mohamad, who determined the speed of the younger man's rise. But despite 12 years in the job and a near fatal heart attack in 1989, Mr. Mahathir shows little readiness for retirement. So the strength of party support for Mr. Anwar's bid took Mr. Mahathir, who had publicly urged that there be no challenge to Mr. Ghafar, by surprise. It is indicative of the democratic fundamentals of UMNO politics that Mr. Mahathir was ignored and the Anwar movement spread like brushfire.

Several key Anwar supporters are likely to claim important cabinet posts. At some point - although not until after the next general election - Mr. Mahathir himself may find the Anwar bandwagon a threat.

The system has its flaws. One is the spread of money politics, with favorable business deals granted to the well connected. Another is that the often outspoken democratic process within UMNO is not fully reflected at the national level, where opposition activity is constrained and the news media are largely controlled by government-related entities. But hard though it is on individuals, the system ensures the renewal of the body politic. It is a process that has enabled Malaysia to manage three prime ministerial transitions, all representing generational change. And the omens are good for a smooth transition from Mr. Mahathir to Mr. Anwar, with the timing now probably as much in party hands as in Mr. Mahathir's. Contrast this situation to that in Indonesia. Last week Golkar, the party apparatus that is a key part of Mr. Suharto's system of government, had its national congress,a twice-a-decade event. Perhaps President Suharto, who is 72, intends to stay in power until he dies, which could prolong his era, already 25 years old, by an additional 15 years or more. If that is his intent, he is going about it the right way, rather than preparing for an earlier handover.

Last week he brought his considerable weight to bear to ensure the preeminence within Golkar of two of his protégés (and that of two of his children). One protégé was Information Minister Harmoko, a faithful but not especially distinguished servant of Mr. Suharto's. He became the first civilian president of Golkar. The other was Research and Technology Minister B.J. Habibie, an able but controversial figure who combines an almost familial relationship to Mr. Suharto with intellectual brilliance, economic nationalism and an appeal to Muslim loyalties. Mr. Habibie is not liked by the self-consciouslynonsectarian army.

Mr. Suharto's moves in Golkar have been presented as part of a process of civilianization and democratization. They were indeed a setback for the military. Some saw them as Mr. Suharto's retaliation for the army's successful pressure earlier in the year to have a former armed forces chief, Try Sutrisno, installedas vice president.

But democratization they are not. Nor are they likely to ease the eventual succession process. When Mr. Suharto was re-elected for a sixth five-year term in March, the nation seemed to be preparing for a gradual opening up of the political system, with the parties, including Golkar, and parliament playing a larger role, but with the armed forces retaining the remnants of dwifungsi - the political as well as military function of guardian of the state against sectarian and centrifugal forces.

But judging from the Golkar congress, Mr. Suharto seems less interested in preparing for a future without him than in continuing his old games - keeping everyone guessing, and playing factions, interest groups and institutions off against one another. All this may ensure stability and continuity while he is around. But it is no solution to the future government of a country that has made remarkable social and economic strides under Mr. Suharto.

Malaysia and Indonesia are coming from different directions. Malaysia's stability and relative prosperity have been continuous. Mr. Suharto inherited a chaotic, impoverished nation. But the progress achieved by both countries in recent years emphasizes the contrast between the subterranean processes by which Mr. Suharto operates and the rough and tumble of UMNO politics. Even such a forceful figure as Mr. Mahathir cannot always prevail against party sentiment. UMNO may usually obey the leader it installed, but it remains the ultimate arbiter. In Indonesia, Mr. Suharto manipulates the party he created, but in the process he undermines the institutions that are necessary fora smooth succession.

Copyright © 2006 The International Herald Tribune