dari diskusi Hatta dan Prof. McKahin of Cornell ..1949-1970, keduanya sudah almarhum.

—————————————————–
Q: Dr. Hatta, what should be the basis of Indonesia economy ?


“The basis of Islamic thought,” he said, “is in the direction of socialism, and it would be possible in Indonesia to make a working synthesis” of Islam and socialism, with individuals following Islam and socialism together. He went on to observe that “social justice and the brotherhood of people are the pillars of Islam if I have only one loaf of bread for today and tomorrow, I must give half to a dying man; that is the economic basis of Islam.” As we discussed the situation further, he made clear that what he believed best suited to Indonesia would be a mixed economy with a large socialist sector, a substantial cooperative sector–primarily at the rural level–and a limited capitalist sphere whereby small business would continue to coexist with these larger sectors. He did not think it would be necessary to develop “a capitalist middle class before a basically socialist society could be established, or even in order to have the necessary administrative personnel to man the apparatus of a socialist society.” Most suitable for Indonesia, he believed, would be a mixed, but heavily socialist, economy, resting on democratic political foundations.

Dr. Hatta, what do you think about ORLA’s Guided Democracy and ABRI Dual Function ?——————————————————————–
He felt that to have taken over the
Dutch system of parties and elections was a major mistake and that, as a consequence,
Indonesia had never had a fair test of democracy. He was strongly opposed
to functional representation, regarding it as a device employed by governments
for manipulating politics so as to insure their own continuing dominance.
He was contemptuous of the militaryτs assertion of a right to a “dual function,”
seeing the armyτs spread into administrative and economic life as grossly incompatible
with maintenance of professionalism and morale among officers and soldiers,
and as involving a level of corruption and mismanagement of the economy that was
ruinous for the country.

Q: Dr. Hatta, what should be the basis of Indonesia Economy ?—————————————————————
Hatta continued for many years to argue cogently for a devolution of
political, administrative, and fiscal authority in keeping with the countryτs expanse
and diversity. He held that, for a state of Indonesiaτs proportions and character,
“democracy is incompatible with the principle of centralism. . . . the larger the
national territory and the more differentiation in the various aspects of life, the
more specific problems there are pertaining to these separate areas that cannot be
dealt with from the central seat of the national government.” He refused to support
those who advocated a senate, believing that such an additional representative
body would slow the process of national government too much. He regarded
the existing pattern of decentralization through provices as largely a facade, and
was convinced that the kabupaten and its outer island equivalents were the appropriate
units for local self-government and national elections, and that the province^
chief function should be as a coordinating body for the several kabupaten
in its territory. Single-member election constituencies based upon the kabupaten
unit, voting on an absolute majority basis would, he was convinced, have had a
politically integrating effect, as well as more effectively representing regional
needs. Political parties adapted to such a system could, he was convinced, have
provided a much stronger foundation for parliamentary government than the party
and election system that had been so mindlessly borrowed from The Netherlands.
If the kabupaten were the major unit of national autonomy, Hatta believed it
would be possible to guide the gradual development of village self-administration;
but without this devolution and an increasing self-rule at the village level, it would
be impossible to realize his long-cherished plans for village credit and sales cooperatives.
Having justifiably earned the name of “father of cooperatives” in his
country, Hatta was deeply disappointed that, a decade after the revolution, his
long efforts to root them in the villages had proved a failure. In discussing this
with me in early 1960 he ascribed their weakness to two main causes–insufficient
training of local administrative personnel and too little financial support from the
government to get them far enough underway to stand on their own. He saw Indonesia^
Chinese as still performing a necessary role in marketing and dispensing
credit in rural society and believed that considerably more time and preparation

would be necessary before it would be feasible to replace them with peasant cooperatives
. He continued, however, to see cooperatives as potentially providing the
means for lightening the peasants1 burdens, and helping insure that they could hold
on to their land. Cooperatives were, he believed, the most promising instrument
available for giving the village the strength to maintain a healthy autonomy in the
face of the central governments growing weight and for insuring greater social
justice for Indonesia’s exploited rural majority, or, as he put it, “a bridge toward
economic democracy.”

Q: Dr. Hatta, what is your view on Parliemantary systems ?—————————————————-
Hatta saw the system of parliamentary government as basically sound and
potentially well suited to Indonesian conditions. It had failed thus far in Indonesia
, he believed, because it had not been appropriately adapted to local conditions.
Its application in the postrevolutionary period, he argued, had been a simplistic
mirroring of a variant borrowed from The Netherlands, one attuned to Dutch requirements
and experience–not Indonesian realities. Despite the force of his arguments,
he was unable to prevail against the powerful marriage of convenience between
Sukarno and the army. Wanting no place in the authoritarian government
they were introducing, he resigned from his position as Vice President on December
1, 1956.

————
As final remark,
Hatta was, of course, disappointed in his expectations, and in later years he
came to lower his sights. But never did he abandon his belief that Islam could
play a progressive socio-economic role that would lead Indonesia to greater social
justice. That idea was very much in his mind in talks I had with him in 1967, and
then and in subsequent talks he expressed great disappointment and bitterness
that the Suharto government prohibited his establishing and leading a political
party dedicated to that goal. That one of the two principal founding fathers of a
nation was denied such an opportunity and had his political freedom abridged for
the remainder of his life, reveals the sense of insecurity of those who made these
decisions.
But even though shut out from participation in politics, Hatta remained something
of a political symbol, one that was disturbingly awkward for those who held
power. For in the face of a government that was increasingly dictatorial and corrupt
, he stood out as a sort of stubborn reminder that political leadership in
Indonesia had been possible without these qualities, and that one of the countryτs
truly great men remained intellectually honest, uncorrupt, and genuinely devoted
to social justice and democratic government