In the foreword to the Indonesian translation of "Suharto and His Generals: Indonesian Military Politics 1975-1983," the author, veteran Australian journalist David Jenkins, described a poignant moment disgraced former president Suharto shared with a former minister.
"Wasn't there anything good at all about the New Order?" he wondered lamentably, as public derision over his three-decade rule reached unprecedented heights in the aftermath of his resignation.
Last week's publicly-stated threat by the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) – to oust the president unless the government disbands the Ahmadiyah sect – has prompted many to recall one "good side" of the New Order: It refused to put up with militant and violence-prone Islamist groups. Suharto's New Order regime practically gave the military a blank check to deal with those deemed as partial to confrontation instead of negotiation.
In September 1984, hundreds of Muslims in Tanjung Priok, North Jakarta, demanded, in an unfriendly manner, the release of their colleagues held in custody over an incident involving military personnel. The military was on hand in full force to make them change their minds, but to no avail. Eventually, a clash between machete-wielding Muslims and M-16-equipped troops broke out and turned into a bloodbath that left hundreds of protesters dead. What has since become known as the Tanjung Priok Incident is regrettable, but the government had left a clear message to those who wish to take matters into their own violent hands.
Five years later, in 1989, the military took decisive action in Lampung against what they claimed to be extreme Islamists bent on overthrowing the government. Human rights groups later described it, to which many agreed, as a massacre that saw over 200 members of the sect slain.
The military action may be a less praiseworthy example on how a government should deal with extremists, but the fact is that no major movement that promotes violence has cropped up in this country ever since. Until, that is, in post-Reformasi Indonesia with the bombings in Bali, at the Australian embassy and JW Marriott Hotel, attacks that claimed hundreds of innocent lives.
Fast forward to 2011: FPI protesters last week vowed to overthrow President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono if the government continued to allow the controversial Ahmadiyah sect to exist. Habib Riziq, FPI's chairman, even warned of revolution unless the president forced Ahmadiyah to disband.
To the uninitiated, the Islamic sect has been around since 1920 and was officially recognized in 1953. Some 500,000 Ahmadis live across the country, believing that the religious movement's Indian founder, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, was a prophet, a view contested by mainstream Muslims.
If the FPI thinks the government favors Ahmadiyah, they are wrong: Since February 2006, hard-liners have attacked the sect's facilities 11 times with impunity. But the deadly Feb. 6 attack on Ahmadis in West Java, which left three people dead, seemed to be the last straw. Three days later, Yudhoyono called for the disbanding of violent organizations.
However, what was a rare moment for the president to appear firm and decisive has now become a political embarrassment to him. Key ministers went public by reminding him that official rules for disbanding organizations were in place. In effect, some of their statements portrayed the president as a hapless leader who acted arbitrarily.
Home Affairs Minister Gamawan Fauzi practically lectured the president on the finer points of the law. He said that under the current law on mass organization, the government cannot easily disband any such grouping. "Evidence is required, because if we did it without evidence, the government would be blamed for violating the law," he said in a rather poor attempt to appear statesmanlike.
What more evidence is required than a vow made in public to overthrow a government and start a revolution escapes the rational mind.
Legislators, who more than anyone else in this country are supposed to uphold the laws and the Constitution, have not been much of a help either. Instead of inviting Riziq and his like-minded ideologues to articulate on his strong statements that border on inciting people to act illegally against the state, they have merely dismissed the FPI's actions as misuse of the principle of freedom of expression.
Henry Kissinger once said that action delayed is a crisis invited. In our case, the crisis is already upon us thanks to inaction, and is overstaying its welcome.
[Taufik Darusman is a veteran journalist and co-founder of Indonesian Legislative Watch (Teliti).]