Does democracy mean welfare?<\/p>\n
This is the second of two articles on the relationship between
\ndemocracy and economic growth.<\/p>\n
By Ignas Kleden<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): The debate on the relationship between economics
\nand politics seems to depend very much on which level the debate
\nis conducted. If we talk about economic growth, for example, the
\nbasic assumption and vocabulary used tend to be more technical-
\neconomic rather than political.<\/p>\n
This is all the more so if the discussion goes along the line
\nof the stages of economic growth ala Rostow, where political
\ninterests and the need for a political participation claim on
\npower and policy, or pressure on a constitutional system, are
\nassumed to originate from an improved economic condition, which
\nis brought about by the take-off stage.<\/p>\n
There is a point in the above argumentation. It is a
\nsociological truism that the changes occurring at the material
\nbase of a culture (of which economics and technology become the
\nmain underpinning) will, in turn, have repercussions which,
\nagain, impinge upon the social structure and cultural system of a
\ngroup of people. This is discernible in the changing social and
\ncultural behavior of Indonesia's emerging middle class.<\/p>\n
It is equally true that Indonesia's ongoing economic
\ndevelopment has now been built on effective social engineering.
\nIt takes the form of political restructuring, by which the
\nexisting political institutions are expected not to hinder but,
\nif possible, to support the project of economic development aimed
\nat economic growth.<\/p>\n
The reduction of the number of political parties, for example,
\nhas been done on the assumption that too much political
\nparticipation through uncontrolled party politics will only shake
\nthe political stability. This, in turn, will render the economic
\ndevelopment insecure and unsustainable.<\/p>\n
The central position of economic development and the basically
\neconomic approach to the development problem is also reflected in
\nthe discourse on it. People are gradually made used to the
\ndifferentiation between economic affairs and noneconomic affairs,
\nas if social, cultural and political and ecological matters are
\nonly a residue of economic problems.<\/p>\n
The present discussion starts to show a new awareness in which
\nthe clear-cut differentiation is perceived as counterproductive.<\/p>\n
In a recent lecture commemorating the 15th anniversary of the
\nMuhammadiyah University in Yogyakarta, the State Minister of
\nNational Development Planning, Ginandjar Kartasasmita, pointed
\nout that many concepts in development have been doomed to failure
\nbecause people tend to separate economic development from social
\ndevelopment.<\/p>\n
This separation results in various sorts of development bias,
\nwhich render many conceptions misleading and their implementation
\nineffective.<\/p>\n
Those misconceptions are discernible in the tendency to
\nbelieve that people at the lower social layer, who are to be
\nassisted, are first in need of material help rather than
\ntechnical and managerial assistance.<\/p>\n
Or that the sort of technology which is introduced from above
\nmust be better than that which the people themselves are
\ntinkering with, though with many trials and errors. Or that the
\npeople are either stupid or lazy and that the only way to help
\nthem is through instruction instead of motivation.<\/p>\n
Also, that social institutions which have developed in society
\nmust be ineffective, so that they are usually neglected or even
\nignored, instead of our feeling obliged to strengthen and enhance
\ntheir workings.<\/p>\n
All these misconceptions, to quote the minister, originate in
\nthe basic misconception that a rational dimension of development
\nis more important than its moral dimension, or that the material
\naspect is more important than its institutional aspect, or that
\neconomic affairs are more important than social matters.<\/p>\n
Though the above statement contains nothing new in a
\nsociological respect, it nevertheless becomes a strategic
\nopportunity to shift focus from economic growth to a more
\nsocioeconomic perspective, which treats economic growth as merely
\na part, albeit an important part, of development. In that
\nconnection, the issue of prosperity is a good case in point.<\/p>\n
It is clear enough that prosperity is not simply an economic
\ncategory but also a social or, if you will, an ethical one, since
\nit has to do with the wellbeing of the citizens. By way of
\nillustration, we can take up the issue of the minimum wage of
\nworkers. As far as economic argumentation is concerned, the
\nconsideration usually focuses on the labor as a factor of
\nproduction.<\/p>\n
The question is whether the low wage is still necessary to
\nretain the present price of goods in order to be competitive, or
\nwhether it is more profitable to replace the labor with machines
\nor other technological equipment.<\/p>\n
However, workers are human beings, who deserve a treatment as
\nsuch. Keeping in mind that there are various technical
\nargumentations which stand for or against the minimum wage, we
\ncan make a long story short by contending that there are two
\nopposing positions in this regard.<\/p>\n
First, if we look at them only economically, the question is
\nhow low their wage should go in order to keep Indonesian goods
\ncompetitive on the international market, and let other
\nconsiderations, be they ethical or political, just follow suit.<\/p>\n
Second, if we treat them as human beings who deserve a life
\ncompatible with their human dignity, the question should be
\nreversed: What minimum wage should be provided to the workers in
\norder for them to lead a good life, which they deserve both as
\nhuman beings and as the citizens of an independent state? This
\npoint should be established first and then let economic calculus
\nfollow suit.<\/p>\n
The two questions mentioned above have very concrete
\nimplications. In the United States, for example, one can find the
\nrichest managers in the world, but in Western Europe, one can
\nfind the most prosperous workers in the world.<\/p>\n
In this connection, another statement of Prof. Nazaruddin
\nSjamsudin is also to be reconsidered, in which the huge
\nproportion of economically weak people and the millions living
\nbelow the poverty line are said to be the main obstacle to the
\ndevelopment of democracy in Indonesia.<\/p>\n
From this statement it can easily follow that we must give
\npriority to economic development and, after that, there is a real
\nhope for the advent of democracy.<\/p>\n
The question is then: Can we assume that the huge proportion
\nof economically weak people and the millions still living below
\nthe poverty line will surely have their living standards improved
\nif we keep pushing for economic growth?<\/p>\n
This is very debatable. We have learned in the course of the
\nlast years in Indonesia and in other developing countries that
\neconomic growth is one thing and the prosperity of the majority
\nof people is another.<\/p>\n
For one thing, economic growth can be accompanied by the
\nprocess of wealth concentration. For another, income
\nredistribution is a matter which has a political rather than
\neconomic nature. It depends not on economic mechanism but rather
\non political will and political decision-making.<\/p>\n
If we are aspiring after economic democracy as a precondition
\nfor political democracy, this is already a political choice par
\nexcellence because economic democracy, which presupposes more
\nequal income redistribution, can only work if the people
\nconcerned are more involved in pushing for such a political
\nchoice.<\/p>\n
This means that even economic democracy is only thinkable if
\nthere is more political participation from the people who are
\nstill afflicted by poverty to strive for a political decision
\nwhich is beneficial to them. In that case it is clear that not
\nonly prosperity is the way to democracy, but democratic
\nparticipation is the way which enables and, if possible,
\naccelerates the advent of prosperity.<\/p>\n
The writer is a sociologist now working at Jakarta-based SPES
\nFoundation Research Center.<\/p>\n
Window A: Prosperity is not simply an economic category but also
\na social or, if you will, an ethical one, since it has to do with
\nthe wellbeing of the citizens.<\/p>\n
Window B: We must give priority to economic development and, after
\nthat, there is a real hope for the advent of democracy.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/does-democracy-mean-welfare-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}