Complacency: Indonesia's democratic deficit<\/p>\n
Adam Tyson, Toronto<\/p>\n
As the Republic of Indonesia prepares for its first direct
\npresidential elections since independence was achieved, many
\nobservers are putting the electoral system and the various
\ncandidates firmly under the microscope.<\/p>\n
Under the watchful eye of domestic reformers and international
\nmonitors, electoral reform is seen as one of the successes of the
\nreformasi era, just as the new press freedoms are seen as a
\nvictory for pro-democracy advocates and freedoms of association a
\nvictory for civil society.<\/p>\n
Despite the obvious obstacles to political reform in Indonesia
\n(such as conflict, corruption, and insecurity), there is much
\nhope that the democratic momentum that has been building now for
\nsix years will culminate in the consolidation of the political
\ntransition that followed the collapse of Soeharto's New Order
\nregime.<\/p>\n
There are two orthodox ways in which to consider the dynamics
\nof political change in any country. There is the top-down
\napproach (or the structural approach) that in brief emphasizes
\nthe role of elites in politics, institutional and systemic
\nreform, the evolution of law and constitutionalism, and the
\nprocess of elections.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, there is the grassroots approach that
\nemphasizes the role of civil society networks, popular momentum,
\neducation, empowerment, mobilization, representation, and
\npolitical awareness. The latter is more difficult to study in a
\ncomprehensive way as it remains elusive and volatile, often
\nsubjected to whims, deception and manipulation.<\/p>\n
Compared to studying the changes that occur in the state
\nbureaucracy, the civil service, the structures of state power,
\nleadership, or the branches of government, taking a grassroots
\napproach poses many empirical problems and conceptual
\ndifficulties.<\/p>\n
Nevertheless, the success or failure of Indonesia's political
\ntransition will depend on a comprehensive understanding of both
\napproaches, and given the immense attention being paid to the
\nstructural changes that are occurring at present, we should focus
\ninstead on the grassroots approach.<\/p>\n
The current media hype and fanfare surrounding the 2004
\nlegislative and presidential elections comes as little surprise
\ngiven the precedent it might set for the future of Indonesia.<\/p>\n
There is a vibrant student movement that plays a vital role in
\nthe national struggle for political liberation from the vices of
\nauthoritarianism.<\/p>\n
One finds a wonderful sense of purpose and unity in the
\ndiscourses about political reform and political renewal on
\nJavanese campuses in Jakarta, Bandung and Yogyakarta, for
\nexample.<\/p>\n
Likewise there has been a proliferation of NGO's (both
\ndomestic and international) that has helped bring financial aid
\nand political representation to those who are marginalized or
\nvulnerable. These developments are a testament to the resilience
\nof the pro-democracy movement in Indonesia, not least because
\nthere is an equally powerful and well-organized resistance to
\npolitical reform and democratization.<\/p>\n
Some observers suggest that political awareness is low,
\nparticipation is limited, interest in political affairs is
\ncircumscribed, and attitudes towards authority tend towards
\nobedience with little willingness for confrontation.<\/p>\n
Proponents of this view cite examples such as unwillingness to
\nengage in controversial political debates, complicity towards and
\ntolerance of corruption, and inherited traditions of obedience
\ntowards authority.<\/p>\n
Immediately following the transition in 1998 there was a
\ngenuine opportunity to engage in a campaign at the grassroots
\nlevel to educate and facilitate an understanding of democracy.
\nMany believe that this opportunity was lost.<\/p>\n
As a result of the lack of substantive change since the fall
\nof Soeharto, it is held that disillusionment has spread
\nthroughout the public at alarming rates.<\/p>\n
Instead of exercising discipline and contributing to the
\nreform process, it is held that many people are abusing the
\nfreedoms that have been accorded to them, perhaps as a response
\nto the decades of repressive conditions during the New Order and
\nrecent deficits in the democratic system.<\/p>\n
When the euphoria of democracy swept through Indonesia there
\nwere many high expectations, but when these expectations were not
\nmet and conditions did not improve, disillusionment with the
\ndemocratic government grew.<\/p>\n
Whatever the causal factors may be, there is a situation at
\npresent that is seriously hindering the pro-democracy movement.
\nPeople have not yet fully grasped what it means to be a citizen
\nin a democratic country, and what rights, freedoms and
\nresponsibilities this democratic citizenship affords the
\nindividual.<\/p>\n
There is a general reluctance to demand good governance from
\nthe leaders of the Republic of Indonesia, just as there is a
\ntendency to tolerate the maladministration of government and the
\nmisuse of public funds, services, and utilities.<\/p>\n
Although it is assumed at a grassroots level that government
\n\"by the people, for the people\" is supposed to bring positive
\nsocietal changes, it is still important for the public to realize
\nthat democratic principles must go beyond the political lingo or
\nrhetoric of the government.<\/p>\n
Those who hold office or wear a badge, in whatever capacity,
\nso long as it represents state authority, must be held publicly
\naccountable for their actions. The government of Indonesia must
\nencourage the participation of the general public, must seek to
\nbroaden the representation of divergent groups in society, and
\nmust accept that transparency is a key component in securing the
\ntrust of the public.<\/p>\n
The legitimacy of state power is always contingent on public
\nsatisfaction and support, and the government's ability to perform
\nits responsibilities. Within the context of the upcoming
\npresidential elections, there is a new opportunity to engage the
\npublic in politics and promote grassroots education and
\nparticipation.<\/p>\n
Two questions should be at the forefront of the current
\npolitical debate surrounding the 2004 elections and the potential
\nfor change that it brings.<\/p>\n
Firstly, will the people of Indonesia generate the courage or
\ncapacity to realize their democratic citizenship and all the
\nrights and freedoms it guarantees?<\/p>\n
Secondly, will the newly elected president of Indonesia seek
\nto legitimize his or her mandate by breaking the trend of empty
\npolitical promises and work to forge a lasting relationship
\nbetween the government and the grassroots of society?<\/p>\n
The writer, formerly a visiting researcher at Parahyangan
\nCatholic University, Bandung, is now a PhD candidate at Leeds
\nUniversity, England.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/complacency-indonesias-democratic-deficit-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}