Election, candidates and the problem with Fretilin
Timor-Leste had its second presidential election since independence last week, and provisional results are in. But five candidates out of eight are disputing the results, claiming irregularities and corruption have tainted the results. As presidential elections go, this is far worse than Florida in 2000. But it seems that the electoral commission is refusing to carry out a recount, or allow a UN investigation.
The runoff will be between populist ex-guerrilla Francisco “Lu’olo” Guterres, of the former guerrilla movement turned political party, Fretilin, and Jose Ramos-Horta, current Prime Minister, former Nobel Laureate and potential future UN Secretary-General, who founded Fretilin and lived in exile during the Indonesian occupation, but is now an independent candidate.
The problem in my opinion is that leading a guerrilla campaign in the jungle doesn’t really equip a group for the challenges of multi-party democracy. And unless an effective opposition party is found, Fretilin will just continue to trade on its war reputation while slowly turning Timor into a socialist one-party state.
There would have been more candidates, but Trabalhista Party leader Dr. Angela Freitas, who left several comments at this blog, withdrew her candidacy in protest at Fretilin “corruption,” blaming the party for last years crisis. She has some chilling accusations about Fretilin murders and intimidation, and also alleged the involvement of North Koreans, Cubans and Chinese in the rebuilding of East Timor. That raises the spectre of Timor becoming part of a socialist, anti-Western alliance, which would be a terrible outcome for Australia and New Zealand after all we’ve put into securing Timor since 1999.
Nation-building
“Timor-Leste doesn’t reflect well on the international community,” commented Michael Cognato of Passport in response to the election. I don’t quite agree. I think Timor has been a relatively successful peace-keeping operation that reflects well on Australia and New Zealand. What it shows the failure of is the idea of nation-building. I mean, there hasn’t been any effective insurgency against the international forces. Its a tiny country with just a few hundred thousand people, and it has offshore oil reserves, tourism potential, sandalwood and “fair-trade” coffee exports. And yet it is desperately poor and unstable, plagued by armed rebels and youth gangs. The only reason it has no major insurgency or war is because gangsters/rebels can’t afford guns, and have few cars, cellphones and so on – its difficult for them to mobilise large numbers, and practically impossible for them to take on the Anzac troops (except with rebar slingshot archery).
So why can’t the international community promote effective development and good governance? It seems that all the peacekeepers can do is provide temporary security. It is my opinion that many aspects of “nation-building” need to be rethought, as they may be unintentionally weakening states and eroding their legitimacy, causing long-term problems while only providing short-term security. In general, the state is in decline. Trying to build one up, basically from scratch, might just be a losing battle. Timor at least shows us what to expect in the future – territory controlled by a mixture of gangs, cults, churches, militias and remnants of the state, and reaching a certain kind of equilibrium or balance of power.
Axe’s reporting
I’ve never been to East Timor. David Axe has. Go read his blog-reports, and check out his Flickr images – its rare to see such quality reporting in the region. Topics include why war is dead, what weapons the Aussies should choose, why the Australia force outsources its logistics to a private company, and why denying Timor an equal share of oil revenues might be a wise choice.
Re. “a certain kind of equilibrium or balance of power”. This is an interesting thought, Phil. When we approach places like East Timor, PNG, the Solomons, there’s a tendency to assume that a national government must be re-established, ignoring the idea that the concept is quite alien to local people and was only recently imposed as a sucessor to colonial administration.
In these places things have reverted or are reverting to older and more natural patterns – clan-based, politically fragmented – with an admixture of other groups and influences that you mentioned. People go along with the national administration though as long as it funnels money and jobs their way. National government in PNG and Solomons, for example, is about seizing power so that wealth can be redirected to one’s kin.
Left by strategist on April 14th, 2007