Interview with Muhammad Ma'ruf, member of the National Executive of the PDS, (the Democratic Socialist Association).

Question: The factional infighting between the Indonesian parliament and the President has reached the point of a severe constitutional crisis. An impeachment procedure against him has now started and will culminate in a special session of the People Representative Assembly on the first of August. This may lead to the censuring of the President and his replacement 22 months after being the first democratically elected president. What are the underlying causes for this protracted crisis at the top of Indonesian society?

M. Ma'ruf: The main causes of the crisis in the capitalist elite lies in the unfinished process of bourgeois consolidation initiated after Suharto was forced to step down in May 1998. The bourgeois class is trying to lead the transition from crony capitalism to liberal capitalism and from military dictatorship to parliamentary democracy. After the first multi-party elections in 1999 with a high level of participation a coalition government was formed embracing the main bourgeois parties, the Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI-P) of Megawati, Abduraman Wahid's party, the PKB based on the largest Muslim organisation Nadlatul Ulama, Amien Rais' Party of National Awakening (PAN), Golkar the party of the New Order regime, the United Development Party (PPP) and the political faction of the military and the police.

This process of consolidation of a new bourgeois regime was full of tension and contradictions as it led to incessant attempts to carve out new spheres of business influence at the expense of other factions who have been the only ones to access power before. This behind-the-scenes intense and merciless struggle involves the business interests of the husband of Vice President Megawati, as well as the President's brother and the different factions within Golkar.

During the first year of this bourgeois government scandal after scandal erupted. Golkar was involved in the Bank Bali scandal, where international funds were siphoned into the party's bank accounts. 'Buloggate' and 'Bruneigate' involved the personal entourage of the President when his personal masseur disappeared with billions of Rupiah earmarked for the National Logistic Agency and when Wahid was unable to explain the final destiny of a multi-million "gift" from the Sultan of Brunei. This situation has led to incessant conflicts in the Cabinet of Ministers, where numerous ministers have been replaced and reshuffle has followed reshuffle. This conflict has intensified and reach the point where parliament has initiated the procedure of impeachment that must be finalised with the Special Session of the General Assembly of People's Representatives on the 1st of August.

This protracted crisis has revealed that the process of "Reformasi" has only superficially broken with the past so-called tradition of KKN, of collusion, corruption and nepotism. This democracy is only a pseudo-democracy, a democracy only in name. The reform process has never really attacked the power of the New Order or Orde Baru in the political, economic, and social and business field. Orde Baru is still alive and largely intact. In reality the remnants of the New Order have succeeded in deepening their economic power and its influence over other bourgeois factions and to spread its business interests.

Another factor (and not the least of them, as it involves the conflict between the different bourgeois factions) is the neo-liberal agenda of privatisation and deregulation imposed by the IMF and the World Bank, which if applied to its full extent will hurt a lot of business interests of the old New Order tycoons who will see their assets sold to pay back their loans.

The recent increase in the activities of ultra-right groups is also connected to the strategies of big capitalist groups and their cronies like the former President Habibie and the Radical Muslim groups. Those capitalists finance the ultra-right groups with the aim of destabilizing the present government and creating conditions favourable for the return to power of their protectors.

Gus Dur's defiance in the face of the attacks aimed at removing him from the Presidency has everything to do with the protection of the new business interests of his party and his brother. In nearly 20 months Gus Dur's brother has succeeded in expanding the family's control over 200 companies. If removed from the Presidency he will lose the political power to protect his party and his family interests which will fall prey to the predatory attacks of other bourgeois factions.

Question: But isn't Gus Dur's stubborn attempt to keep power aimed at defending democratic reform against the comeback of the military in politics and the elements of the New Order? Doesn't he deserve, for this, the support of the democrats and the left?

M. Ma'ruf: The left in Indonesia has different views on Gus Dur and on the conflict within the bourgeois elite. But the common view among the left is one that varies from uncritical to critical support of the President. There are clearly illusions in him among those people related to the NGO's and the pro-democracy groups. In words Gus Dur promotes anti-racism, pluralism, the abolition of the anti-communist legislation etc. Another reason for the support for Gus Dur among the left is based on the idea that the left is weak and small and therefore it should look for protection against the ultra-right militias and the repression from the police and the military. That protection, they think, can only come from big organisations. That's why the PRD, the Democratic People's Party and other left groups look for protection from the mass organisations supporting the President, in particular from the structures of Nadlathul Ulama, the largest Muslim group in the country, mainly based in East Java. The PRD's tactic consists of trying to escalate the conflict within the bourgeois elite in order that the NU masses will be aligned against the old forces of the New Order and the ultra-right Muslim gangs.

However, besides being a wrong tactic it is also a very dangerous one. First of all they spread illusions in the democratic credentials of Gus Dur and in his capacity, or willingness, to attack the remnants of the New Order and the ultra right gangs. Let's us not forget that historically the forces of NU and its paramilitary organisation, Banser, in Java and other parts of Indonesia were the main forces behind the anti-communist slaughter in 1965. In recent years NU and Banser were involved in physically attacking the headquarters of papers and journalists critical of the President. Banser is also responsible for attacking a workers' demonstration of the radical union FNPBI in Central Java. Gus Dur's opposition to the remnants of the New Order is also very inconsistent. For instance is he the personal friend of Tutut, the oldest daughter of the former dictator Suharto, and he had no problem in describing the student movement that toppled the same dictator in May 1998 as being financed by the CIA! Sometimes Gus Dur does indeed lean on the small left forces, but he considers them as unimportant and expendable when the moment comes to make a compromise with his rivals in the elite. So recently the leader of the "suicide squads" of NU supporters (ready to die for the President if he were to be removed from office) declared to the newspapers that they did not need the support of left groups like FAMRED (Jakarta student group) or the PRD or LMND (National Student League for Democracy, close to the PRD) because their own organisations were big and strong enough.

The road to betrayal of their alliance with the left groups by those forces is already clear. By clinging to this tactic the PRD is creating illusions and hopes among the masses that this sector of the capitalist class will really defend and advance democracy. By attempting to intensify the "horizontal conflict" (known in Indonesia as the conflict within one and the same social layer) the PRD is abandoning the class content of the struggle for democracy. That is also our criticism of the PRD's initiative to set up a Forum of all Anti-New Order forces, which includes Gus Dur's party, the PKB. By doing this they tend to abandon their criticism of the bourgeois politicians. For the PRD the main contradiction resides in the conflict between Gus Dur and the military, the police, Megawati's party and Golkar. Gus Dur is the so-called "secondary" enemy. Formerly the PRD remains critical of Gus Dur but this has no real clear meaning amongst the rank and file of the PRD where there is a clear lack of criticism of Gus Dur.

Question: At the beginning of June, Gus Dur has threatened to issue an Emergency Decree if parliament persisted in continuing the impeachment procedure against him. For this he has tried in vain to get the support of the Military and the Police. What is your attitude towards this threat?

M. Ma'ruf: We reject the Emergency Decree. This decree consists of a declaration of a state of civil emergency, which is a form of martial law, which Gus Dur wants to use to disband parliament. The PRD wholeheartedly supports the President in his will to issue this decree which they say must be used to attack the remnants of the New Order and Golkar. We think a situation of civil emergency where the military and the police are given extra powers to repress will be used against the left and not against the remnants of the New Order. The left should struggle for more democratic rights to organise, to strike etc., and not support an emergency decree. The PRD also supports the dissolution of parliament but add that this should be done by the masses with the aim of declaring new elections without Golkar. The PRD's position is one of strengthening and consolidating bourgeois liberal democracy. This is a reformist position, which we do not share.

The PDS position is not to take sides in the conflict between different bourgeois factions, but to focus on the class conflict in the country around class demands. We advocate a policy of class independence by which we understand a criticism of all factions of the bourgeois class and a campaign of propaganda and organising on demands related to the people's interests. Today this means we need to fight against the cuts in fuel and electricity subsidies which are causing the prices to increase respectively by 30% and 20%, and we need to struggle for wage increases, against job losses, for a better life etc. This is also one of the ways we want to combat the right Muslim groups who are trying to occupy this terrain in a demagogic manner. Contrary to what our critics on the left say, this does not mean that we abandon the struggle against the eventual comeback of the military. Our activists are intensively engaged in campaigning against the military, but we don't do this by supporting Gus Dur or by abandoning our criticism of his faction.

Our own protection and that of all the left against military repression or right wing militias cannot come from within the bourgeois groups. History in Indonesia has proven that more than once. We will get no protection from hiding under bourgeois wings.

We will only get our protection from the people, that is, the workers, the poor peasants and the urban poor. But this depends on our capacity to relate our activity and our program to the people's needs and interests. The stronger the working class and other people's mass organisations, the better our protection. And these organisations will only be strengthened with a policy of class independence.

Question: To conclude this interview could you explain to us what you think are the strengths and the weaknesses of the left in Indonesia today.

M Ma'ruf: The main weakness of the left is that it has been unable to develop a mass bass and a strong vanguard organisation since the fall of Suharto. Then there is the great lack of ideological clarity and a clear view on revolutionary policy, program and tactics. We did not succeed in winning a mass base for a revolutionary program

The strength of the left lies in the great popularity of its ideas, especially amongst students and in the proliferation of all kinds of left groups. In that sense we can say that the seeds for the building of a strong revolutionary organisation have been planted and will have to be harvested as soon as possible.