Globalization boosts democracy<\/p>\n
By Aleksius Jemadu<\/p>\n
BANDUNG (JP): The survival of our nation-state is facing great
\nchallenges today. The recent riots that broke out in several
\nplaces shook the foundation of this nation. At the same time, the
\nintegration of our economy into global capitalism could have a
\ntremendous impact upon the cohesiveness of our society.<\/p>\n
It is therefore important to revitalize our shared ideal to be
\na just and prosperous society. We should never forget that our
\nnation-state sprang from the unity of purpose shared by the
\nfounding fathers when they were struggling for independence from
\ncolonial rule.<\/p>\n
Indeed, one's sense of belonging to a nation-state is nothing
\nelse than a state of mind which presupposes a willingness to live
\ntogether as a nation and a constant commitment to build a modern
\nstate. As long as we can keep the progressive dynamics of this
\nstate of mind, there is no reason to be skeptical about the
\naccomplishment of our common goals.<\/p>\n
This article is primarily concerned with the possible
\nconsequences of global capitalism upon the future evolution of
\nour nation-state. Dealing effectively with challenges that might
\nresult from our involvement in the global free trade would
\nnecessitate a good understanding not only of the dynamics of our
\nexternal environment but also the evolution of our own society.<\/p>\n
It is often argued that our political stability thus far has
\nbeen to a great extent due to the indispensable role of the
\ngovernment. Instead of nurturing society-led stability, we have
\nbeen too preoccupied with establishing state-led stability. The
\nrole of the government is decisive in almost every essential
\naspect of our social life. As a result, our civil society has
\nbecome very weak and tends to be indifferent about policy issues
\nwhich are of high public importance.<\/p>\n
The chairman of the National Development Planning Agency
\n(Bappenas), Ginandjar Kartasasmita, said in March that the state
\nshould provide appropriate channels so that social energy might
\nbe transformed into societal creativity which is essential for
\nthe nation (Kompas, March 22, 1997).<\/p>\n
The experiences of industrialized countries have taught us
\nthat people's creativity in science, technology, and arts, would
\ndevelop well if there was enough freedom of expression. It is the
\nresponsibility of the government to provide a conducive
\natmosphere in which people with special talents could develop
\ntheir creativity. It should be noted that in the era of free
\ntrade, nations will compete to become a source of technological
\ninnovation so that more efficient production processes might be
\nensured.<\/p>\n
Many analysts believe that in the era of globalization and
\nfree trade the role of the private sector tends to increase while
\nthe role of the state tends to be limited. Restricting people's
\npolitical freedom in the mid of global economic liberalization
\nwould be an anachronism. Political leaders in developing
\ncountries should learn how to adapt to an open society where
\npeople's political freedom cannot be denied. They are required to
\nbe ready to accept the presence of a countervailing power in the
\npolitical system so that the actions and inactions of the ruling
\npower might be effectively controlled. Political democracy
\nwithout independent control over the execution of political power
\nwould be unthinkable.<\/p>\n
One of the basic characteristics of our society is that we can
\neasily reach consensus on certain political issues no matter how
\ndifficult it is to bridge the conflicting stands. An instant
\nreconciliation between two conflicting ethnic groups (the Dayaks
\nand Madurese) in West Kalimantan recently is one example.<\/p>\n
Why weren't the fundamental roots of this social problem
\nexamined? Can the government guarantee the same strife will not
\nhappen again? And what is the connection between the riots and
\nthe way the central government accommodates (or neglects) local
\ninterests in the development process? These are the questions we
\nhave to deal with if we want to see the ethnic conflict in its
\nbroader context. It seems our common strategy in dealing with
\nconflict is a denial of its existence which sometimes leads to
\nmore radical violence.<\/p>\n
Our society is also very vulnerable to manipulation or
\ncooptation by the political elite.<\/p>\n
The endless rivalries within the Indonesian Democratic Party
\n(PDI) is one example. Many would agree that the rivalry between
\nthe ousted chairwoman, Megawati, and the government-backed
\nchairman, Soerjadi, was not spontaneous. If external elements had
\nnot intervened in the internal affairs of the party, the party
\nwouldn't have ended up in such a mess which ultimately destroyed
\nits future.<\/p>\n
The worst impact of this conflict was that PDI lost its
\ncredibility among its constituents as the election showed.<\/p>\n
The fact the present leadership of PDI has to fulfill its
\n\"moral obligation\" in satisfying the dominant power means it is
\ndifficult for the party to create an independent policy in the
\npolitical system.<\/p>\n
The existence of opportunistic politicians in the political
\nparty could prevent it from becoming an independent and reliable
\ncountervailing force in such a monolithic political entity. There
\ncould never be a mass-based political party as long as the
\npolitical system tried to coopt political groups into the
\ndominant power establishment. There goes our hope for a small
\nhybrid of a democratic future.<\/p>\n
The \"Megawati phenomenon\" clearly demonstrates that our
\npolitical system is not yet mature enough to tolerate the
\npresence of a countervailing force. The ousting of Megawati from
\nher position as a legitimate leader of PDI was an indication of a
\nlong-lasting paradox in the political system. On the one hand, we
\naspire to be a democratic state based on the fourth principle of
\nPancasila, but on the other hand our political conduct remains as
\nprimitive as ever.<\/p>\n
This is a reality we shouldn't be proud of. Only independent
\npolitical parties have the ability and courage to exercise
\neffective public control which is a conditio sine qua non in a
\ncivilized political entity. Indeed, if we want to become a modern
\nindustrial society we need to build a democratic political
\nsystem. The experience of the former Soviet Union and East
\nEuropean countries should tell us that without political
\ndemocracy there could never be an industrialized society.<\/p>\n
There is an increasingly persuasive argument that the key to a
\ndemocratic future for Indonesia is the empowerment of its civil
\nsociety. A strong civil society can be said to exist if political
\ninfrastructure such as political groups, mass organizations,
\ntrade unions, professional organizations, and non-governmental
\norganizations (NGOs) can function independently and be fully
\ncommitted to striving for people's aspirations so that they might
\nbe accommodated by the political superstructures (the
\ngovernment).<\/p>\n
Our long emphasis on state-led political stability, while
\nnecessary for sustaining economic growth, has resulted in the
\ndepoliticization of the people.<\/p>\n
The concept of a \"floating mass\" has been used by the New
\nOrder government as an approach to political participation and
\nthe mobilization of mass support. The aim of this concept was to
\nban all political activities at the village level with the
\nexception of a short campaign period immediately before the
\ngeneral election.<\/p>\n
The justification of the ban was based on the rationale that
\nin the 1950s and early 1960s rural people were involved in
\ndivisive politics and ideological fragmentation due to the
\nstruggle for power among political parties.<\/p>\n
The government wanted to liberate people in the villages from
\nmanipulation by political parties. Therefore, political parties
\nwere not allowed to establish organizational structures at the
\nvillage level. Thus, political groups were deprived of their
\npopular base.<\/p>\n
But the dominant Golkar gained from this political arrangement
\nbecause it could rely on the local government administration to
\nsidestep the restriction. It is then possible to say that through
\nthe application of the concept of a \"floating mass\", the
\ngovernment has depoliticized the majority of Indonesian people
\nwho live in villages.<\/p>\n
It should not come as a surprise if the participation of the
\nvillage people in the formulation and implementation of
\ndevelopment programs are mainly a result of top-down mobilization
\nby government officials and does not constitute a free choice or
\na bottom-up spontaneous process. Since those parties not in power
\nare generally weak, they cannot be expected to impose change on
\ngovernment policies.<\/p>\n
Our colonial masters used to think the Indonesian people knew
\nnothing about their problems. It would be shameful if such an
\narrogant attitude, which we once tried to eliminate, still
\nexisted today.<\/p>\n
With better education and more access to development
\ninformation, the Indonesian people today are fully aware of their
\nbasic political and economic rights. Therefore, the dominant
\npower should respect them as legitimate carriers of the demand
\nfor political and economic justice. If that be the case, then we
\nhave a good reason to be optimistic about the democratic future
\nof this country.<\/p>\n
The writer is a lecturer at the Faculty of Social and
\nPolitical Sciences of the Catholic Parahyangan University,
\nBandung. He obtained his Ph.D. in social sciences from KU Leuwen,
\nBelgium.<\/p>\n
Window: With better education and more access to development
\ninformation the Indonesian people today are fully aware of their
\nbasic political and economic rights.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/globalization-boosts-democracy-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}