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
.)
