Encourage public dialog<\/p>\n
Tuong Vu, Ph.D. Candidate in Politics, University of California,
\nBerkeley, USA<\/p>\n
The recent outburst of protests against Lee Kwan Yew's
\ncomments in Jakarta quickly brought back to mind the massive
\nanti-U.S. demonstrations last October. The similarity between the
\ntwo events is striking. When the U.S. launched the war in
\nAfghanistan in pursuit of al-Qaeda, waves of street protests by
\nMuslim groups broke out in front of the American embassy,
\ndemanding that Indonesia severe diplomatic relations with the
\nU.S. Moderate Muslim groups such as the Nahdlatul Ulama, the
\nlargest Muslim organization in the country, remained
\nconspicuously silent, while not a few politicians jumped on the
\nbandwagon to criticize the government and the U.S. The intense
\npolitical pressure nearly threw the three-month old Megawati
\ngovernment into paralysis and forced it to withdraw its earlier
\nsupport for the U.S.<\/p>\n
The war in Afghanistan had hardly anything to do with
\nIndonesia (how many Indonesians cried when the Taliban fell?),
\nbut the month-long diplomatic crisis caused by a small group of
\nradicals did much to aggravate its fragile economy. The rupiah
\nfell further as protesters scared away potential investors and
\ntourists, wrecked international trust in the government, and
\ndiverted its attention away from far more urgent problems.<\/p>\n
The anti-U.S. and anti-Singapore protests may be caused by
\ndemocracy, but this is only partially true. Both cases are
\nclassic examples of special interests politics, when a small but
\nwell-organized group is able to get what it wants (in these cases
\nnot money but publicity) despite huge welfare losses to the whole
\ncountry.<\/p>\n
Special interests politics exists in every political system,
\nauthoritarian or democratic. Although the style (street protests
\nor backroom deals) may be different, the same principle applies:
\nSince the benefits the group reaps are concentrated whereas the
\ncosts to the public dispersed, the group clearly has the
\nadvantage.<\/p>\n
In the anti-Singapore demonstrations, the scale of protests
\nhas remained small and damages insignificant, but this may have
\nbeen caused less by the ability of Indonesian policy-makers to
\nmanage the issue, than by the status of the U.S. as the world's
\nsole superpower that made it much more unpopular than Singapore.
\nThe point is: The danger remains when similar groups will attempt
\nto conduct foreign policy on the streets at a huge cost to the
\nIndonesian economy and its hard-working people.<\/p>\n
In the short run, the government has no effective means at
\nhand to ward off the danger. Authoritarian rule as practiced
\nunder Soeharto's New Order has been justifiably discredited and
\ndiscarded. With a lively democracy after a 30-year dictatorship,
\nIndonesia has also outgrown the Singapore-style internal security
\nact. The government just has to learn how to live with
\ndemonstrasi.<\/p>\n
In the long run, however, there are ways for the government to
\nprevent small but vocal groups from using street protests to
\nhijack its foreign policy for their special interests. The key is
\nto develop alternative forums for public debates not only in the
\nmass media but also in physical environments, especially
\nuniversities, think tanks and public education organizations.<\/p>\n
Physical environments serve not only to draw students from the
\nstreets but also to recruit moderate voices -- that would
\notherwise remain silent -- to participate in the debates.
\nPhysical events also do not allow street protesters to dominate
\nmedia headlines.<\/p>\n
Some alternative forums, such as the Centre for Strategic and
\nInternational Studies (CSIS), currently exist, but their
\nactivities are infrequent. Moreover, most of them are based in
\nJakarta and organized privately to serve the agenda of certain
\npolitical groups. Most debates on public policies are held in
\nJakarta's five-star hotels with restricted participation and the
\ninterested public can only learn about them from media reports
\nthe day after the events took place.<\/p>\n
The government should recognize that moderating and
\nfacilitating (but not manipulating or suffocating a la Soeharto)
\nthe development of sophisticated public opinion is in the public
\ninterests. Public debates therefore cannot be left to private
\n(but in fact representing special interests) initiatives alone as
\nthey are now. More government-sponsored CSIS-style organizations
\nhave to be established, especially outside of Jakarta. Rectors of
\nhuge campuses in Jakarta, Medan, Makassar, Manado, Malang,
\nSurabaya and Yogyakarta should be given incentives to arrange
\nsuch forums.<\/p>\n
Elections of rectors as recently implemented in certain public
\nuniversities are an important measure to generate more dynamic
\ncollege administrators. The lift of formal and informal
\nrestrictions on social research imposed under Soeharto should be
\nthe next logical step. It is ironical that democracy has freed
\nthe students to demonstrate on the streets as they wish, but
\ntheir teachers still need permits to conduct research on certain
\ntopics.<\/p>\n
In economics there has been an increasing recognition of
\ngovernments' role in providing effective institutions to nurture
\na healthy market. Indonesia can show the world that governments
\ncan help nurture a healthy democracy as well.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/encourage-public-dialog-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}