Democracy: Worth struggling for<\/p>\n
By Ignas Kleden<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): The question of democracy in Indonesia is
\nbecoming more complicated because increasingly complex social
\nconditions necessitate more sophistication. Without
\noversimplifying the issue, there is an urgent need to
\nmethodically look at democracy to render the question manageable.<\/p>\n
The question of power is fundamental to democracy because
\ndemocracy deals with governance, which presupposes the formation
\nand the use of power. In turn, the formation and the use of power
\ndepends on legitimacy, the worthiness of a political order to be
\nrecognized. A state's validity depends on its ability. The more
\nrational the state power, the more legitimate it will be.<\/p>\n
At the government level, however, the formation and the use of
\npower relies on checks and balances. The balance of power implies
\ndivision and distribution, whereas the check on power implies
\npublic control of power. The question is more concrete when
\nformulated in negative terms: The less concentrated the power,
\nand the less immune it is to criticism and control, the more
\ndemocratic its use will be.<\/p>\n
Lord Acton's famous phrase, power tends to corrupt, is nothing
\nbut a political translation of the very basic anthropological
\nadage that all human beings are fallible. Human fallibility makes
\ncontrol necessary in order to minimize the corruption of power.<\/p>\n
The ability to accumulate and wield power is only made
\nreasonable and acceptable when the questions who is entitled to
\nchoose and establish the basic aims of power, and who then
\ndecides to pursue the basic aims, are answered. At this level,
\ndemocracy deals with the question of consensus building and
\ndecision making.<\/p>\n
In a technocratic system, for example, only the opinions of
\nexperts count because it is assumed the problems of modern
\nsocieties are too complex for laymen to deal with. What the
\npublic thinks is treated as irrelevant because their opinion
\nwould supposedly complicate the matter.<\/p>\n
Consensus building and decision making have therefore a double
\nsignificance. First, it can be safely assumed that not every
\npower holder is able to make good decisions on matters effecting
\nthe public. Second, people must be able to participate in the
\ndecision making process, not because they are in the best
\nposition to make a decision, but because they are most entitled
\nto make decisions which will affect their living conditions. It
\nis a not a question of the right decision, but rather self-
\ndetermination. It is not a matter of intelligence or expertise,
\nbut rather a matter of basic rights.<\/p>\n
The logic of democracy in this model is quite clear.
\nGovernance and power wielding presuppose some basic aims which
\njustify it. The basic aims, however, need some basic values to
\njustify their validity. Therefore, the third level of the
\nproblematic of democracy pertains to democratic values, which
\nbecome the basis as well as the goal of governance. One basic
\nvalue is the belief that every human being is created equal. This
\nbelief is the source of some inalienable basic rights, such as
\nthe right to the pursuit of happiness, freedom from any sort of
\nexploitation, and the right to self-determination.<\/p>\n
In philosophical terms, democracy treats every human being as
\nautonomous, independent of the whim and favor of other people. In
\npsychological terms, democracy treats every human being as being
\nmature enough to be responsible for themselves. In sociological
\nterms, democracy assumes that every human being is capable of a
\nmeaningful social interaction, the underpin of social
\nintegration.<\/p>\n
Power is domination, whereas values are hegemony. The
\nrelationship between domination and hegemony is characterized by
\na fundamental asymmetry. No power, even absolute, is free from
\nthe need for hegemony to justify, to strengthen and to perpetuate
\nits existence. There is a permanent search for hegemony from the
\nside of domination. This is apparent in the tendency of power
\nholders to create political myths or ideological beliefs. If the
\npolitical myths and ideological beliefs are not able to justify
\nthe political order, they can at least justify the existence and
\nthe role of the ruler.<\/p>\n
To establish hegemony there is a provisional need for
\ndomination. Once hegemony is established, however, the domination
\nbecomes irrelevant and superfluous. This relationship is obvious
\nin schools. The enforcement of discipline among children needs
\nsupport from dominate mentors and educators. Once discipline is
\nestablished, there is no need for domination anymore. Children
\nwho have succeeded in appropriating their values of discipline do
\nnot need the control of domination, which if retained, looks
\nridiculous.<\/p>\n
The democratic problem lies in the fact that power holders
\ntend to create and disseminate their own values to justify and
\nperpetuate their power. This is very normal and very human.
\nParents create myths and stories to perpetuate the obedience and
\nsubmission of their children. Maturation is the process of
\nchildren gradually making up their own minds and putting forward
\ntheir own opinions and views.<\/p>\n
In Indonesia, power politics is characterized as practical
\npolitics, which is fairly clearly circumscribed by the official
\nregulations. The reduction of the number of political parties,
\nthe revocation of political opposition, the implementation of
\nfloating mass-policy, and the enforcement of the so-called
\nnormalization of campuses are only some of the regulations
\nretarding the maturation f democracy in Indonesia.<\/p>\n
The second level of democracy, namely the politics of
\nparticipation and people's empowerment, has had more room over
\nthe last few years. The role of NGOs can never be exaggerated,
\nbecause they, due to their mobility and flexibility, can get to
\nareas beyond the reach of both the bureaucracy and the political
\nparties.<\/p>\n
NGOs are responsible for publicizing social problems like the
\nenvironment, poverty, sexual harassment, minimum wages and gender
\ninequality. And because NGOs are too small to become a dangerous
\nrival to the government, they should be allowed to become the
\ngovernment's competent partners.<\/p>\n
The third level of democracy, namely that of views, values and
\nconceptions, is relatively more open in Indonesia than the other
\ntwo levels. Some important issues are given official
\ninterpretations and then disseminated through bureaucracy to
\nshape the public's view. The interpretation of Pancasila, the
\ndoctrine of the national culture, and, on a more concrete level,
\nthe interpretation of family-like relationships in politics and
\neconomics, are delineated by the government.<\/p>\n
However, this is only the case because there are very few
\nalternative interpretations voiced by Indonesian intellectuals
\nand social scientists to challenge those made by the government.<\/p>\n
There is a wide intellectual arena in which to establish
\nintellectual and political hegemony by providing basic but
\nsubstantial political conceptions.<\/p>\n
A democracy is created through struggle, success and failure.
\nThe cause might be too small for to die for, but is certainly big
\nenough to live for.<\/p>\n
The writer is a sociologist with the SPES Foundation Research
\nCenter.<\/p>\n
Windows: The third level of democracy, namely that of views,
\nvalues and conceptions, is relatively more open in Indonesia than
\nthe other two levels.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/democracy-worth-struggling-for-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}