Collectivism versus individualism<\/p>\n
By Ari A. Perdana<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): The process of amending article 33 of the 1945
\nConstitution is currently deadlocked. Some members of the task
\nforce are proposing the principal of individualism to replace the
\ncurrent principal of collectivism (azas kekeluargaan). Others are
\ndefending the original principal.<\/p>\n
The pro-individualists argue that collectivism is not the
\nfoundation of a market economy. Conversely, the pro-collectivists
\nargue that individualism leads to aggressive liberalism, which
\ndoes not fit the collective nature of Indonesian society.<\/p>\n
It appears that the nature of the arguments is more than
\npolitical. Rather, it is more a debate between different schools
\nof thought. The outcome will determine the economic foundations
\nof Indonesia's future.<\/p>\n
Individual liberty is the basic philosophy of the
\nindividualism principal. In individualist-based societies,
\nindividual liberties are given the highest supremacy, even over
\nthe state. The role of state is to serve individual rights.
\nTherefore, any regulation based on the constitution should
\nguarantee individual liberties.<\/p>\n
Collectivism, on the other hand, views individuals as elements
\nof the universal set, called society. Individual liberties and
\nrights are acknowledged as derivatives of society's rights.
\nConsequently, according to the collectivism principal, individual
\ninterests have to give priority to \"social interests\".<\/p>\n
But how do we define \"social interests\" in practice? Suppose I
\nprefer to watch a football game on television and my neighbor
\nprefers Ally McBeal. On what basis should we claim that football
\nrepresents the social interest better than the other?
\nAccordingly, how do we justify the claim that society prefers
\nhaving a national airplane, automotive or whatever industry,
\nrather than a strong agricultural industry?<\/p>\n
This problem has been addressed by Nobel laureate Kenneth
\nArrow (1962) in his famous \"impossibility theorem\". Arrow argued
\nthat, in practice, the \"social interests\" -- or \"social choice\"
\nin his terminology -- could not be defined given the plurality of
\nindividuals, unless there is an individual whose preference could
\nbe claimed to be representative of society's preference.<\/p>\n
Ironically, such a situation requires a dictatorship, in which
\nthe ruler (or state) decides what is bad or good for society.
\nThis leaves room for authoritarianism.<\/p>\n
Dictatorial and authoritarian rule do not necessarily mean the
\nleaders are wicked. In The Republic, Plato argued for a
\nphilosopher-led state. The philosopher leaders act as benevolent
\ndictators, using their power to solve society's economic and
\nsocial problems. However, that is a utopian ideal.<\/p>\n
When the state intervenes, it never has perfect information
\nabout what is best for society. It is more likely that the state
\nis the most uninformed agent.<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, we have been all too familiar with rulers'
\ninterests, which are claimed to be social (or national)
\ninterests. For the sake of national development people have been
\nexpelled from their villages. In the name of national stability,
\nnewspapers have been banned, students have been depoliticized,
\nand so forth.<\/p>\n
The pro-collectivism proponents argue against individualism.
\nThey argue that it will lead Indonesia toward economic liberalism
\nand aggressive open competition. The argument is partially
\njustifiable, however, while it is true that economic liberalism
\nallows every individual to compete for individual welfare, there
\nis something missing in the logic.<\/p>\n
Free competition is not unrestrained competition. Instead,
\nsomeone's freedom to maximize welfare is constrained by other
\npeople's freedom and rights. When an individual harms another
\nwithin business activities, he or she is violating the basic rule
\nof economic liberalism and, as a consequence, will
\nbe subject to legal action. Therefore, a \"social\" equilibrium
\nwill be attained if everyone is free to maximize their own
\ninterests while respecting other people's freedom.<\/p>\n
The market economy is the practical form of economic
\nliberalism. If competition in the market is perfect, no one has
\nexcess profits or earnings.<\/p>\n
Hence, the role of government is to maintain fair and perfect
\ncompetition. It is a condition for every individual to have equal
\naccess to economic resources and equal opportunities to improve
\ntheir own quality of living. It means that the market economy
\ndoes not countenance monopolistic, collusive, nepotistic or any
\nother unfair business practices -- something the opponents of
\nmarket economies fail to notice.<\/p>\n
So the only responsibility of the state is to guarantee
\nindividual rights. We do not need the state to claim itself as a
\nrepresentative of our individual preferences. Neither do we need
\nit to decide what is good and what is bad for the people.<\/p>\n
The writer is a researcher at the Centre for Strategic and
\nInternational Studies in Jakarta and a lecturer at the Faculty of
\nEconomics, University of Indonesia<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/collectivism-versus-individualism-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}