Hamas's lesson for Indonesia
and the US
By Gary LaMoshi
DENPASAR, Bali
- Observers have focused on one obvious lesson from Hamas' victory
in the Palestinian election: democracy in the Middle East may not
produce the results the United States wants. But there's a larger
global lesson particularly applicable in Indonesia, the latest US
poster country for democracy in the Muslim world.
The Bush
administration's embrace of democracy as the answer for the Middle
East is another symptom of its allergy to
unwelcome facts. The theory proposes that
democracy will produce regimes friendly to US policies. That just
ain't so.
If the US theory worked in Israel, the closest
thing to a democracy in the region, then Shimon Peres would have
been prime minister for the past decade, rather than the Likudniks.
If it worked in Iran, the most democratic Muslim country there, the
world wouldn't be fretting over potential nuclear-weapons
development.
In Latin America, democracy first produced a
wave of free marketers the US could love; later results show a swing
to the left, including virulently anti-US Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.
Democracy produces results that are far more likely to reflect the
aspirations and hopes of people on the street, based on local
issues, than the dreams of the White House.
'Our
SOB'
This lesson isn't new. US policymakers have known it for
decades and, current rhetoric aside, it's doubtful they've forgotten
it. From the Shah of Iran to the House of Saud, Sese Seko Mobutu to
Ferdinand Marcos, Augusto Pinochet to Park Chung-hee, the US has
traditionally favored "our SOB" (an apocryphal quote attributed to
presidents as far back as Franklin Roosevelt) over free and fair
elections. Often, the US predicted chaos if its man fell, and in
some cases, such as the former Zaire, it's been proved right.
Today in the Middle East, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak
and the Saudi royals suffer occasional public prodding over a lack
of democracy. But it's just lip service, similar to US 1960s and
1970s criticism of apartheid South Africa. It's the same with that
great US ally in its global "war on terror", Pakistani President
General Pervez Musharraf.
While the US habitually encourages
democratic window-dressing and sometimes wins marginal concessions,
if push comes to shove, those regimes know the US will be in their
corner for strategic reasons, whatever they do or don't do at the
ballot boxes.
In Egypt, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, the US
fears that full-blown democracy could lead to the same results as in
the Palestinian election: a victory for radical Islamic parties. US
analysis is probably correct, and the Hamas victory illustrates why.
Hamas' venomous views on Israel get virtually all the
attention in the US, but those weren't the deciding factor in the
Palestinian election. Palestinians didn't vote to push Israel into
the sea, but to toss corrupt Fatah officials off the boat. Former
Palestinian president Yasser Arafat reportedly stashed away billions
during his decades as head of Fatah and the Palestinian Liberation
Organization. Despite a steady stream of aid dollars from the United
Nations, the West and the Gulf states, average Palestinians have
seen little progress or development. The key to Hamas' victory was
that voters perceived it as honest, a reputation aided by a
social-services network benefiting ordinary Palestinians.
Scout's honor
That doesn't mean Hamas is a bunch
of boy scouts. Voters may have cast their ballots against
corruption, but they also get "death to Israel" as part of the Hamas
package. Palestinians saw corruption as their overriding concern,
and either ignored the rest or decided it was an acceptable price
for cleaner government. As much as the struggle with Israel,
corruption had become an obvious, if not unbearable, burden in the
daily lives of average Palestinians, and they seized the opportunity
to do something about it at the ballot box. Saudis and Egyptians
would, too, most likely, as Pakistanis have when given the chance.
In Indonesia, a similar scenario may be unfolding, with the
US working the wrong side of the street. Indonesia places in the top
five in global corruption rankings, largely thanks to the legacy of
the (US-backed) Suharto regime. Democratically elected President
Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has made fighting corruption a top
priority, but progress has been spotty.
The Indonesian
military, the centerpiece of Suharto's New Order, remains the nexus
of much of Indonesia's corruption, but it also remains largely
beyond the reach of civilian authorities. US moves to restore full
ties with the military will only serve to strengthen its clout and
broaden its impunity (see US 'national security' favors Indonesian thugs,
December 2, 2005).
One political party has made corruption
its top issue and gained growing appeal, the Prosperous Justice
Party (known by its Indonesian abbreviation PKS, which, ironically,
also abbreviates the politically correct term for prostitute). PKS
was one of just two parties to gain votes in the 2004 legislative
elections compared with the 1999 national vote. At its national
convention last August, PKS targeted 20% of the vote, which would
place it in the top three among Indonesia's political parties, if
not the largest, and allow it to run a presidential candidate.
Who's serving whom?
Chosen Speaker of the People's
Consultative Assembly, then-PKS leader Hidayat Nur Wahid (no
relation to former Indonesian president and reformist cleric
Abdurrahman Wahid) won plaudits with a declaration that he would
forgo many of the job's perks, including the fancy limousine and
hotel suite.
His act underscored how far PKS stands out from
other parties: PKS portrays itself as privileged to serve the
public, while Indonesian politicians typically view service as an
entitlement to privilege (see Indonesia's transition: The good, the bad and the
ugly, October 20, 2004).
PKS is an Islamic party, known
for working at the grassroots level through mosques, and some
adherents fear that the pursuit of political power has distracted it
from its original mission, preaching. In its campaigns, PKS plays
down extremist Islamist positions and shrouds its support for
sharia (Islamic) law. In the Far Eastern Economic Review last
May, Sadanand Dhume sounded alarm bells about PKS's fanaticism, an
article that may have been more extreme than any PKS views.
There is no comparison between Hamas and PKS, except that
they are both Islam-based parties that have gained by following the
Koran's invocation of dakwah, good works on Earth. The point
is not how far apart they are or how radical PKS may be now or
become later. The point is that Islamism isn't what wins votes.
In the 2004 vote, PKS also became the biggest party in
Jakarta's city council. There's no plurality for sharia in
Jakarta, by far Indonesia's most cosmopolitan and pluralistic urban
center. But Jakarta is also arguably Indonesia's corruption center,
and its municipal government is famously unresponsive and
dysfunctional, except for funneling wealth to officials.
Like their Palestinian counterparts, Jakarta voters were
ready to accept or ignore PKS's Islamist baggage in favor of a more
pressing issue. Indonesia's Islamic parties have polled roughly a
third of the vote in every legitimate national election, but the
door is wide open for PKS or more radical parties, if they can
establish and retain their anti-corruption credentials, to succeed
across Indonesia.
Corruption, not Islamism, is the issue
that's going to win hearts and minds in Indonesia, and the sooner
Washington realizes that, the better the chances that secular,
moderate parties will continue to carry the day. It's not about
supporting the military as a bulwark against radicalism, it's about
encouraging clean government. If Bill Clinton's political adviser
James Carville had the White House's ear, he'd frame the issue in a
way even George W Bush could understand it: It's the corruption,
stupid.
Gary LaMoshi has worked as a broadcast
producer and print writer and editor in the US and Asia. Longtime
editor of investor rights advocate eRaider.com, he is also a
contributor to Slate and Salon.com, and a counselor for Writing Camp
(www.writingcamp.net).
(Copyright 2005 Asia Times Online
Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us for information on sales, syndication and republishing
.) | |
