The downfall of former Indonesian dictator Suharto in 1998 swept in an era of political freedom and hope for a better future.
But nearly a decade later, many in this nation of 235 million remain desperately poor. And in dozens of interviews with laborers, traders, hotel owners and entrepreneurs, Indonesians expressed what was once unthinkable -- nostalgia for the economic stability of Suharto's authoritarian, US-backed regime.
"What people want, what I want, is a return to Suharto's time," said Boan, a peasant who struggles to feed his three children by toiling in fields owned by wealthy farmers. "Life is bitter now compared to then."
He can barely pay for once-subsidized food and fuel, he said. And despite promises from authorities, the road in his village was never repaved after it was washed out in flooding six months ago.
"This government doesn't care about us," said Boan, sitting outside his dirt-floored home in Bekasi, near Jakarta, the capital, his worn feet caked in mud from the rice paddy.
The new sentiment toward Suharto, who is now 86, reflects how hard the transition to democracy has been in the world's most populous Muslim nation. Indonesia, a vast country of around 17,000 islands, endured centuries of colonization by the Portuguese, British and Dutch before being occupied by the Japanese during World War II. And now, with decentralization, it finds itself grappling with new layers of corruption, limited foreign investment and a string of terrorist attacks by Islamic militants.
Much of the current malaise is financial. While some people interviewed still oppose Suharto because of the rights abuses during his rule, especially in remote provinces where the military brutally suppressed separatists, almost all said they were financially better off 10 years ago.
Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, the fourth head of state since Suharto's ouster, has yet to make good on promises to cut poverty since his election three years ago. Around half the population still lives on less than US$2 a day, and democracy can be a hard sell if it fails to provide prosperity.
Indonesia's recovery from the 1997-1998 Asian financial crisis was slower than that of its smaller neighbors. The nation was thrust into a recession the World Bank described at the time as "the most dramatic economic collapse anywhere in 50 years."
After contracting 13 percent at the peak of the crisis, the economy has rebounded. But the disparity between rich and poor is growing, with a fifth of the rural population living below the government poverty line. Inflation is up, and so is unemployment, now at 10 percent.
The public perception is that the average Indonesian has not benefited enough from the recovery, IMF country director Stephen Schwartz said.
"There needs to be a system in place to protect the most vulnerable groups," he said. "Otherwise there will be resistance to keep the economy open."
Yudhoyono's government recognizes that widespread poverty can lead to political instability and is struggling to fund education, medical care and infrastructure. Some 51.4 trillion rupiah (US$5.5 billion) was allocated for poverty relief this year alone, including clean water supplies, electricity and affordable housing.
It is "the most important problem" facing the government today, said Defense Minister Juwono Sudarsono, whose budget was recently slashed to finance rural development and compensate victims of a long stream of natural disasters.
But for many in the countryside, it's not enough.
"If you go to the village level, they prefer a dictatorship to what they see, at times, as a chaotic democratic system," said Dewi Fortuna Anwar, head of research at the Habibie Center, a political think tank.
The economy has been further hurt by terrorism, which has severely damaged Indonesia's tourism sector.
After Sept. 11, 2001, suicide bombers killed more than 240 people on Bali and in Jakarta, many of them Western tourists. Suharto, by contrast, cracked down hard on Islamic militants in the 1980s.
These days Suharto lives a secluded life in a mansion on a leafy lane in Jakarta. In June, dozens of supporters unraveled banners wishing him a happy birthday at the Hotel Indonesia traffic circle, where a decade ago tens of thousands angrily chanted for his resignation.
The army general seized power in a 1965 coup that left up to half a million people dead and ruled the country with an iron fist for the next 32 years, killing or imprisoning hundreds of thousands of political opponents. Suharto and his family amassed up to 327 trillion rupiah by exploiting the country's vast mineral wealth.
Yet he also oversaw decades of nearly uninterrupted economic growth, while halving the poverty rate, expanding national health care, roads and schools and ending a dependence on foreign rice imports.
Suharto's rule ended in 1998 after the financial crash caused the prices of everyday goods to skyrocket, triggering nationwide riots and massive pro-democracy rallies. He has evaded prosecution on charges of embezzling state funds, with lawyers successfully arguing he is too ill to stand trial. Efforts to punish him for killings have also gone nowhere, in part because his family and supporters still have a grip on politics or decision-making, and once massive demonstrations calling for him to be imprisoned dried up several years ago.
In the northwestern province of Aceh, where his military tortured political dissidents and killed thousands in a war against separatists, many people still hold bitter memories of him.
"Today we no longer fear the soldiers," said Maisarah, a 35-year-old housewife. "Back then it may have been safer, more stable, but that was only because the leader was ruling with an iron fist."
Yet other Indonesians now prefer to remember the dictator's benevolent side.
Amad, 31, who makes less than US$2 a day trading used plastic and cardboard, is more worried about feeding his pregnant wife than bringing Suharto to trial.
"Now we cannot afford anything," he said, pushing a handcart down a potholed track. "It was better then than now."
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
On May 13, the Legislative Yuan passed an amendment to Article 6 of the Nuclear Reactor Facilities Regulation Act (核子反應器設施管制法) that would extend the life of nuclear reactors from 40 to 60 years, thereby providing a legal basis for the extension or reactivation of nuclear power plants. On May 20, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) legislators used their numerical advantage to pass the TPP caucus’ proposal for a public referendum that would determine whether the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant should resume operations, provided it is deemed safe by the authorities. The Central Election Commission (CEC) has
When China passed its “Anti-Secession” Law in 2005, much of the democratic world saw it as yet another sign of Beijing’s authoritarianism, its contempt for international law and its aggressive posture toward Taiwan. Rightly so — on the surface. However, this move, often dismissed as a uniquely Chinese form of legal intimidation, echoes a legal and historical precedent rooted not in authoritarian tradition, but in US constitutional history. The Chinese “Anti-Secession” Law, a domestic statute threatening the use of force should Taiwan formally declare independence, is widely interpreted as an emblem of the Chinese Communist Party’s disregard for international norms. Critics
RSS