インドネシアにみる統治スタイルの連続性

Abstract

Qualities of leadership of two Indonesian presidents, Sukarno and Suharto, often are contrasted in such traits as personality, professional background, and national policy. As a pro-Communist revolutionary, Sukarno's charisma is hardly similar to that of his successor, an anti-Communist, development-conscious "Smiling General." Yet there are at least as many similarities in, as differences between their respective styles of governing. Both have been intensely concerned about the political unity of the nation and have used to this end the Proclamation of Independence Day, the Constitution of 1945 and the Pancasila (five principles of the state). A brief content analysis of the presidential speeches presented annually on Independence Day reveals, as is shown in the table, a strikingly frequent use of certain key words and slogans during both Sukarno's Guided Democracy period (1959-1965) and Sukarto's Panca Sila Democracy period (1966 to date). Sukarno's attachment to "revolution" and Suharto's concern for "development" both have been fashioned into slogans and acronyms, thus into symbols of governmental performance. The post-1965 Panca Sila Democracy and the pre-1965 Guided Democracy, in substance, differ only slightly from each other. Continuity also can be observed in the management of governmental and political apparatus. Rule by the Javanese majority has been a fundamental principle of Indonesian politics for the last three decades of independence, and with this has come an extreme sensitivity to balancing power between Javanese and non-Javanese forces. Sukarno's concept of NASAKOM has prevailed in Suharto's idea of three political groupings : Golkar, the Indonesian Democratic Party and the Development Unity Party. Both leaders have attempted further to turn the bureaucratic apparatus into a convenient machine to support and to promote government ideology. Finally, the pre-Gestapu and post-Gestapu presidents, not being able to use effectively the massive government bureaucracy, have resorted to "extra-constitutional" means to accomplish their objectives, as exemplified by Sukarno's creation of the National Front, KOTI, and KOTOE, and Suharto's similar reliance upon BAKIN for intelligence, OPSUS for political operations, and KOPKAMTIB for security and order. The personality cult of "Pak Harto" is much less distinct than that of "Bung Karno." Sukarno's use of "aku" (the intimate form of the first person singular) appears amazingly often in his 1965 speech, but in contrast, Suharto's more recent efforts to present himself as a symbol of unity must not be overlooked either, Too, while Sukarno's concern for himself and his nation led to the construction of monuments of "revolution, " Suharto has followed suit through his monuments of "development" : the increase of hotels and entertainment facilities in and around the capital, as well as an ill-fated "Mini-Indonesia" project somewhat resembling Disneyland. It may be wondered whether Suharto's leadership will draw closer to that of Sukarno, if he remains in power for a long period of time. It is impossible to determine now how his style will develop. What seems more certain is that Suharto will continue to create slogans of unity and development and will resort to extraconstitutional as well as to constitutional instruments of convenience.