JAKARTA (March 24, 2012) — “We warned them about trusting the military.”

The topic of the conversation was Egypt, but the speaker was no anti-Supreme Council of the Armed Forces activist or Western human-rights worker. She was a top adviser to the vice president of Indonesia, a country that knows a thing or two about generals and politics.

Egypt’s revolutionaries may — rightly — have little interest in advice from the West, but they are ignoring the lessons of history in countries with experiences similar to their own.

The parallels between Indonesia and Egypt are striking. Each has a former general who ruled for three decades. Each has a military that propped up the regime and wove its tentacles into every corner of the economy. Both strongmen were ultimately unseated by an economic crisis that brought the masses into the streets.

“They idolized the army as the guardian of the nation,” Dewi Fortuna Anwar, the vice presidential adviser, told me, speaking of the Egyptian politicians, civil-society activists and religious leaders who met with their Indonesian counterparts last year. “Now we wonder whether Egypt will be Indonesia in 1966 or 1998.”

1966 is a reference to the infamous “Year of Living Dangerously,” when a military-civil society alliance brought down dictator Sukarno only to have the generals replace him with Gen. Suharto and sideline the civilians, ushering in three decades of quasi-military rule. A popular uprising in 1998 led to Reformasi, when the military ultimately told Suharto it was time to go.

Suharto flirted with relinquishing power to the military, but ultimately handed the reins to his vice president. He may well have saved Indonesia from the crisis now gripping Egypt as the generals of SCAF, the transitional military council, flail about trying to negotiate the unfamiliar shoals of politics and diplomacy.

Though many wanted him prosecuted, Suharto was allowed to quietly live out his final years. Some here think the spectacle of the Hosni Mubarak trial is counterproductive. “The price of blind justice can be political turmoil,” Indonesian Foreign Ministry spokesman Michael Tene told me.

Other senior officials worry that Egypt will go the way of Pakistan, with the military functioning as a parallel government.

Indonesia’s transition was not without trauma; for a few years the country changed presidents — all civilians — like most people change underwear, but it has now settled into a flawed but functioning democracy.

A decade-and-a-half after its revolution, Indonesia is still struggling to eradicate the kind of corruption that plagues Egypt. Real power is still held by the old oligarchs in new clothes. Islamist militancy remains a threat. And Muslim-Christian violence continues to flare. But the good news is that public outrage and sharp media coverage are pushing things in the right direction.

Corrupt officials are being jailed, Muslim political parties have been incorporated into the government without the imposition of sharia law, and intra-religious clashes, common after Suharto’s overthrow, are now the exception rather than the rule.

“We look around and say it’s all chaos, but when you look from the outside, you realize things are in pretty good shape,” observes Jakarta Post Senior Editor Endy Bayunie, who just returned from a year in the U.S.

That’s not to say people aren’t cynical. A recent survey shows that the president’s political party — the most popular in the country — would win barely 13 percent of the vote if the election were held tomorrow.

A critical difference between Indonesia and Egypt is that civil society flourished during the Suharto era, allowing the intelligentsia to create a blueprint for the post-Suharto years. It was a blueprint that compartmentalized the military.

“It is an oxymoron to expect the military to be the midwife of a democracy,” Dewi Anwar says she and her counterparts told the Egyptians. “We said, ‘Whatever you do, don’t give the military a long leash.’ ”

But the soldiers aren’t locked in their barracks. Indonesia’s current president is an ex-general and the man with the best shot at winning the 2014 presidential election is another ex-officer who also happens to be Suharto’s son-in-law.

Indonesia’s generals may not have been the midwife of democracy, but they were among those attending at the birth. And they are still part of the political landscape 14 years later because they have earned their place through the ballot box. Another lesson for Egypt and its own generals.

Lawrence Pintak, who covered the Indonesian revolution, is the founding dean of The Edward R. Murrow College of Communication at Washington State University and author of “The New Arab Journalist: Mission and Identity in the Time of Turmoil.” He was previously director of the Adham Center at The American University in Cairo.

Copyright © The Seattle Times Company

E-mail this article | Print this article

By Lawrence Pintak

Lawrence Pintak is an award-winning journalist and scholar. He is a former CBS News Middle East correspondent and was founding dean of the Edward R. Murrow College of Communication at Washington State University (2009-2016). He was named a Fellow of the Society by the Society of Professional Journalists in 2017 for "outstanding service to the profession of journalism" around the world. Pintak is a contributor to ForeignPolicy.com, The Daily Beast, and other outlets. Read his articles at pintak.com. His books include Reflections in a Bloodshot Lens: America, Islam & The War of Ideas; Islam for Journalists (co-editor); The New Arab Journalist; and Seeds of Hate: How America’s Flawed Middle East Policy Ignited the Jihad. He holds a PhD in Islamic Studies from the University of Wales, Trinity St. David. Follow him on Twitter @LPintak.

Leave a Reply