INDONESIAN MORAL CRISIS

Indonesia’s capacity to steer a steady path to recovery from its current COVID-19 travails and secure the
future of its development will, nonetheless, be under increasingly intense international scrutiny over the
coming year as it assumes the presidency of the G20.

Hosting the summit in Bali is just one aspect. Navigating the crafting of an agenda that will secure its
standing as a global player with the moral authority to make a difference to its own and the world’s recovery
and development outcomes is a far more important one.

Indonesia’s President Joko Widodo (or Jokowi) has ‘staked every ounce of his political capital on his
economic development agenda’ since coming to office. His government’s management of the COVID-19
crisis resisted experts’ calls to lockdown in May and June, when they might have made a difference to health
outcomes, afraid of upsetting the economy and disrupting civic and religious life.

Despite the anger of many Indonesians at the government’s handling of the pandemic and criticism,
especially in the international media, polls have shown that the President’s approval ratings remain healthy,
with voters split on whether the economy or health should be the government’s priority. Aware of numbers
like these, the administration ‘thinks it has judged the politics of the pandemic well’.
This moral crisis can be happened because the rulers have been controlled by money, so that they only think
about themselves not to the life and welfare all of the peoples, although I know that not all of our leaders
have such characteristic, but because of the greed of a few people, this has resulted that crisis moral
between peoples and their leaders and between peoples and other peoples.

There is a moral crisis in Indonesian politics today. It is now reaching its peak. The crisis can be seen in
various types of corruption. The report from Hong Kong ranking Indonesia as the third most corrupt in Asia
only looked at a portion of the evidence, namely that government officials demand money from people in
business. In reality there are other forms - such as officials taking money from the state. Secretary of State
Mr Murdiono says this is only about Rp 2 billion (AU$ 1 million).

A much more common form of corruption again is political corruption, intimidation. It is done quietly.
People are too afraid to speak about it. But it is very common. The newspapers suffer from
it. Political activists suffer from it. Those who have been detained speak about how strong this intimidation
is - as far as holding a pistol to the head. I have heard this from them directly.

Collusion between officials and business is also very common. For example the scandal at the High Court
right now (in which High Court judge Adi Andojo Soetjipto accuses his fellow judges of corruption). And it is
not limited to the High Court. The entire bureaucracy is guilty of it. Another example is the Timor motor car
(in which Tommy Suharto obtained special tax breaks for a Korean car he wants to build). That is collusion
too.

All this is amoral behaviour in politics. It is not rational. All of it conflicts with political morality. So it is not
the 1997 elections that makes this moment special, but the moral crisis of which you speak?

Yes, it is this crisis, not the elections. The important thing is that we come to these elections in a state of
high moral crisis. So when they came along and asked me to join KIPP, I didn't hesitate to join them.
Some people speak sceptically about the morality in politics KIPP promotes. Armed Forces Commander Gen.
Feisal Tanjung said radical groups veil themselves in 'moralistic-utopian' clothes. Academic Affan Gafar said
the 'moralist' groups are led by people who once enjoyed the privileges of the New Order (a reference to
Goenawan Mohamad, former editor of the banned magazine Tempo). What really is the role of morality in
politics?

Ideally, morality ought to be in balance with interests. I think our behaviour is determined by two sources -
firstly by values, secondly by interests. Interests have to do with things like position and material riches.
Values are connected with morality, with ideals, legitimation, and these more noble things.

For the last 30 years of Indonesia's New Order we have neglected moral factors. Indonesian politics are so
pragmatic. They have become secular. Values and ideology have been neglected in political life.
Our political life has been dominated by pragmatism, by the economy, while other things have been put in
second place.Society feels badly done by in this imbalance between interests and moral values. I think
society is aware of this disparity and is starting to move, starting to rise up. People want to
restore political values. Political behaviour must take more account of the values that live in society.

KIPP is a movement based on morality, but one that has political implications, even though it does not
intend to gain power. It wants to colour power with morality. That is why KIPP is more a moralistic
movement.

You once said 2003 will be the year when a big effort should be made to return power to the parties. Why
did you name this year?

I said that because it is so closely related to the succession. The presidential succession is highly dependent
on the health of the president. Till 2003 is the maximum that the president can still function well and remain
healthy. If he is not healthy, a succession will take place.

In the scenario we foresee from here, there is a tendency to think the succession will not go smoothly. Till
now there is no sign that a successor is being groomed as happened in Singapore for example. So it looks as
if there will be a conflict between the leaders at the moment of succession.

In that conflict there are two possibilities. One is that it will be violent. This could happen if the competing
forces are not equal. The stronger acts harshly against the weaker side, and this will result in a system that,
if possible, is even more authoritarian than the one we have now.

However, this possibility is not very great. Because the international situation, economic competitiveness,
national security, political stability, relations with ASEAN - all these things will be disturbed if there
is political violence as a result of such competition.

Instead, I tend to think the conflict will take place among forces that are more evenly balanced. In this
situation of balance, there is an opportunity for the people to participate. Each of the competing forces will
seek popular support. They will avoid bloodshed and fighting. If one side does begin to use violence, the
other will also use violence and, since they are equal in strength, the result would be general destruction.
No, they would rather cooperate.
This cooperation, if it takes place in 2003, will make the parties a very important arena - whether it be
Golkar, PDI or PPP. Of course on one condition. They must undergo a more rapid transition, to catch the
ongoing political trends. They must be able to attract the rising forces in society and allow them to play a
bigger role.