Achieving stability by democracy, not vice versa<\/p>\n
By Makmur Keliat<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): It is an obvious truism that democracy has its
\nlimits. Boundless democracy certainly will turn a nation into a
\npolitically anarchic society. Accordingly, to some extent
\ndemocracy is not always in line with the rationale behind the
\nmotive of establishing a state.<\/p>\n
In an abstract notion, one of the philosophical reasons
\neverybody agrees with the existence of a sovereign state is the
\navoidance of a lawless society. It is presumed that regulations
\nenacted by a state will provide people with more security and
\nlegal certainty as opposed to a non-existent state.<\/p>\n
Due to this conventional wisdom, there are no international
\nnorms of prohibiting people to unite into a nation despite a
\ndifference in religion, race and ethnic background. It is
\nbelieved and conceived that a social contract among different
\nsegments of society exists to underpin the creation of each
\ncountry.<\/p>\n
However, because one of the motives to establish a country is
\nto provide for stability and security, the international
\ncommunity admits that a state is endowed with a right to
\ntemporarily curtail civil liberty and the freedom of expression.<\/p>\n
As clearly stipulated by Article 4 of the International
\nCovenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 15 of the
\nEuropean Convention and Article 27 of the American Convention,
\nthis privilege is executed if national security and stability are
\nput into jeopardy.<\/p>\n
However, it is erroneous to say that such a prerogative gives
\na legal mandate to a ruling government to arbitrarily restrict
\nfreedom of expression and civil liberty. The crucial aspect at
\nthis point is the definition of national security and stability.<\/p>\n
In developing countries, national stability and security have
\nbeen flexibly conceptualized. Through various catch phrases such
\nas \"to avoid economic crisis and accelerate economic
\ndevelopment\", \"to maintain law and order\", or \"to protect
\nnational interests\", they often limit and proscribe freedom of
\nexpression and civil liberty.<\/p>\n
Revoking the publishing license of the weekly magazine Tempo
\nclearly symbolizes the magic-like words of national stability.<\/p>\n
According to internationally accepted human rights norms, the
\nimplementation of the right of derogation, namely the right to
\ncurtail civil liberties and the freedom of expression, has two
\nadditional requirements.<\/p>\n
Firstly, it can be executed only if national security is truly
\nthreatened (a de facto requirement), most likely in a situation
\nof war. Second, the implementation of the right of derogation
\nshould be announced to the international community (a de jure
\nrequirement).<\/p>\n
Accordingly, it is politically and legally acceptable if some
\ncontinue to lend their support to those still struggling against
\nthe annulment of Tempo. Here, both de facto and de jure
\nrequirements for the government's actions are clearly
\nunfulfilled.<\/p>\n
The revocation can largely be attributed to the Indonesian
\ngovernment's view of the relations between civil liberty and
\nnational stability as antagonistic.<\/p>\n
Irrespective of Indonesian diplomacy, it is difficult to erase
\nthe impression that the revocation has become a zero sum game.<\/p>\n
While national stability has become \"stronger\" because of the
\nrevocation, Indonesian civil liberty has moved in reverse.<\/p>\n
In this context, several big questions arise. Can we still
\nadopt a new concept to see national stability as compatible with
\ndemocracy and civil liberty? Or do we have to spend so much
\nenergy countering the international community and their
\naccusations of human rights violations in Indonesia?<\/p>\n
After all, the case for adopting a symbiotic pattern is not
\nunreasonable. According to an old political axiom, a security
\napproach is limited in handling social grievances and political
\nlegitimacy cannot be gained by force alone.<\/p>\n
It is true that democracy and freedom of expression cannot be
\nexercised without national stability. It is equally true to say,
\nhowever, that national stability can be achieved and maintained
\nwithout respect for civil liberty and democracy.<\/p>\n
Henceforth, increasing demands for democratization should be
\nmet with ventilation and a dialog mechanism rather than a
\nsecurity approach.<\/p>\n
To put it another way, it is better to achieve national
\nstability by democracy, and not vice versa. The reason is simple.
\nAchieving democracy by stability necessitates a condition that
\nthere must be stability before moving into democracy.<\/p>\n
By contrast, stability by democracy would prevent people from
\nconsidering national stability as a pretext for the survival of
\nthe ruling elite.<\/p>\n
Makmur Keliat is a Ph.D degree holder from the School of
\nInternational Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi,
\nIndia and a lecturer of political sciences at Airlangga
\nUniversity, Surabaya.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/achieving-stability-by-democracy-not-vice-versa-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}