Democracy: Absence makes yearning grow stronger<\/p>\n
B. Herry-Priyono, Jakarta<\/p>\n
It is consoling to read Ziad Salim's perceptive article
\n(Economy and democracy: Don't turn out the light, The Jakarta
\nPost, June 22, 2004). I could not agree more with his plea. As
\nhistory has given us ample lessons, the drive for making any
\nsocially consequential exercise of power accountable -- which is
\nthe essence of democracy -- will never die.<\/p>\n
It is within this spirit that I wrote the brief article to
\nwhich Salim responded insightfully. There are two technical
\npoints that may be useful in this brief rejoinder.<\/p>\n
First, when I wrote the article (JP, June 16, 2004), the title
\nwas Many entrepreneurs prefer stability to democracy. The title
\nwas in fact given by The Jakarta Post editors. It has altered the
\nnuance of the original title I gave, The Strongman Syndrome. Of
\ncourse the alteration gave a different impression to the literary
\ndirection than the one I intended.<\/p>\n
Second, there are many styles of writing whose literary
\napplication depends on the intention of the writer. I employed in
\nmy article a genre that is perhaps close to satire. Having
\nobserved electoral power struggles in which the business sector
\nis always deeply involved, I could not help but being engulfed by
\na sense of poignancy -- because of the so-called \"strongman
\nsyndrome\".<\/p>\n
This time, many business tycoons resort to putting their
\nenormous amount of money into candidates who'll guard their
\nbusiness interests, regardless of their orientation toward
\ndemocracy.<\/p>\n
It was against this tendency that my article ended with a pang
\nof satirical poignancy: \"As with all the talk about democracy,
\nwill the last speaker to leave the podium please turn out the
\nlights?\"<\/p>\n
Of course, as Salim rightly suggests, the light of democracy
\nshould not be turned off. However, despite all good will, I would
\nsuggest the following analytical principle. To envision that
\nsomething must benefit everyone (the business sector included) is
\nnot to confuse the normative with the factual.<\/p>\n
The concluding question was one of many ways to express the
\nurgency of the normative (of democracy), but at the same time was
\nnot unaware there is a yawning gap between the two.<\/p>\n
Within this gap stand, among others, many business magnates
\nwho could influence the election outcome with their financial
\nclout. Their stand is extremely important, for money is one of
\nthe most potent weapons of political power. No doubt, at the
\nnormative level, we want tycoons to support the democratic
\nmovement. But nothing in the real world of Indonesian politics
\nshould prevent us from suspecting what factually happens is a
\ndifferent story.<\/p>\n
There is nothing new about the idea of business conservatism.
\nIn her comparative study of several countries (Mexico, South
\nKorea, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Zambia, Egypt and
\nIndonesia), Harvard University political scientist Eva Bellin
\nsuggested the following conclusion in 2000: \"private sector
\ncapitalists in Indonesia have proved consistently reluctant to
\nembrace projects to democratize the country\" and have a close
\n\"alliance with authoritarianism\".<\/p>\n
Of course, an empirical pattern is one thing, normative
\ndirection is another.<\/p>\n
Endless debates are still underway about the precise link
\nbetween the two. One of the most popular -- though popularity is
\nnot to be confused with validity -- argument is that democracy is
\nan endogenous product of economic development.<\/p>\n
Putting it bluntly, it is to say democracy has emerged as a
\nresult of economic development -- in the same way a dictatorship
\ndies as a country ruled by an authoritarian regime becomes
\neconomically richer.<\/p>\n
As a country develops its social fabric becomes more complex,
\nits increasingly educated population begins to assert its
\nautonomous energies. Such a society can no longer be run by
\nauthoritarian dictates. As society develops economically, various
\ngroups will rise against the dictatorial regime, and it will
\nfall.<\/p>\n
There is something odd here. In this view, democracy is being
\nsecreted out of dictatorships by economic development. That is,
\ndemocracy is an endogenous result of economic development under
\ndictatorship.<\/p>\n
But, since dictatorships generate economic development while
\neconomic development leads to democracy, democracy becomes a
\ncircuitous process. Indeed, the emergence of democracy is not
\nbrought about by economic development. Rather, democracy appears
\nexogenously as a deus ex machina.<\/p>\n
This logic is perhaps too academic, but it may be useful to
\nremind us that things are not as clear as they first appear. What
\nseems to be a pattern is that democracy (at least in its formal-
\nprocedural form) is prevalent in countries with per capita
\nincomes above US$ 4,000. It is this pattern that seems to lead
\nus, somewhat too haphazardly, to conclude that economic
\ndevelopment brings about democracy in a causal manner, while in
\nfact the link is far from being a form of causality.<\/p>\n
If economic development is measured by growth, the experience
\nof the Philippines under Marcos as well as Chile under Pinochet
\nwas instructive. What has all this to do with the business
\nsector? I completely agree with Salim that many business
\noligarchs who drive growth under such regimes are not \"real
\nentrepreneurs\" but \"robbers\". What is implied is that the former
\nare those who stick to an open market, whereas the latter are
\nseekers of monopolies.<\/p>\n
Yet, as the fate of transition economies like many Eastern
\nEuropean countries attest, even a so-called open market is not
\nalways compatible with the value of democracy. The root, as some
\neconomists, sociologists and political scientists increasingly
\nobserve, is the growing power of financial clout of the business
\nmagnates to capture policy making and to veto public policies
\nintended for those who need democracy most.<\/p>\n
Indeed, democracy does not stop with the state being
\ndemocratized, for the nature of uncontrolled power shifts with
\nthe river of history. After the saga of anti-authoritarian
\nstruggle against state-based powers, the other story of democracy
\nconcerns the struggle to make money-based powers accountable. It
\nis the unfolding of this parallel story that also interests us,
\nno less, crucially.<\/p>\n
So, no qualms please, Salim, for the light of democracy
\nremains alive and bright!<\/p>\n
The writer is a Postgraduate lecturer at the Driyarkara School
\nof Philosophy, Jakarta.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/democracy-absence-makes-yearning-grow-stronger-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}