Good governance is a must<\/p>\n
By Aleksius Jemadu<\/p>\n
BANDUNG (JP): Oct. 28 is always a day for reflection. In 1928,
\nseventy years ago today, Indonesian youths from different ethnic
\nand religious backgrounds gathered in Jakarta and proclaimed that
\nthey belonged to the same nation and motherland with one national
\nlanguage. That was the birth of Indonesian nationalism and an
\nimportant step toward independence, which eventually came on Aug.
\n17, 1945, when Indonesia finally shook off its colonial shackles.<\/p>\n
As a political force, nationalism remains as important as
\never. It is supposed to revitalize our willingness to live
\ntogether as a nation. Nationalism can be viewed as the soul of a
\nnation, without which the common goals of its members could never
\nbe achieved. Political realists regard it as an important element
\nin national power.<\/p>\n
It is important to note that nationalism is confronted with
\ndifferent challenges from time to time. During the colonial
\nperiod, nationalism was needed to fight against the colonial
\npower. Today Indonesian nationalism no longer faces the threat of
\ncolonialism, but new challenges have taken the place of this old
\nadversary.<\/p>\n
There are at least two sources of challenges: domestic and
\ninternational.<\/p>\n
The two are closely related. Along with the process of
\npolitical reform, more and more Indonesian regions, especially
\nthose with abundant natural resources like Aceh, Irian Jaya, East
\nKalimantan and Riau, have voiced their dissatisfaction with the
\nway the central government has exploited their natural resources.<\/p>\n
As the New Order government pushed the national economy out
\ninto the global market, these regions appear to have suffered
\nrather than benefited from the process.<\/p>\n
People of East Kalimantan could legitimately ask: How much
\nbenefit (if at all) they have received from almost three decades
\nof exploitation of their forests? Were the people of Irian Jaya
\nthoroughly consulted when the central government \"sold out\" their
\nhuge stock of copper and gold? Other regions could also raise
\nsimilar questions regarding their natural resources.<\/p>\n
Another domestic challenge to nationalism has been posed by
\nthe systemic violation of human rights during Soeharto's rule, a
\nproblem to which the present government seems to be incapable of
\noffering a comprehensive solution. Apologies made by the
\ngovernment, no matter how sincere they are, will never be enough
\nto heal the deep wounds caused by such repression.<\/p>\n
Real and consistent action is needed to allow a comprehensive
\nnational reconciliation. Otherwise we will only be sowing the
\nseeds of bitterness and hatred among the victims.<\/p>\n
From a global perspective we tend to live in an increasingly
\nunequal and unjust world. Many people wonder why such inequality
\nhas become worse while nations throughout the world have
\nenthusiastically embrace the principles of political and economic
\nliberalism. As Nancy Birdsell (Foreign Policy, Summer, 1998)
\nsuccinctly put it: \"Ironically, inequality is growing at a time
\nwhen the triumph of democracy and open markets was supposed to
\nusher in a new age of freedom and opportunity\".<\/p>\n
The function of global financial institutions seem to be to
\nperpetuate the domination of rich nations at the expense of poor
\npeople in developing countries. Thus, globalization is not a
\nneutral process. It is biased against the basic rights of poor
\npeople in developing countries. The way the International
\nMonetary Fund (IMF) has set about curing the economic crisis in
\nIndonesia, for instance, has unnecessarily forced millions of
\npeople into a life under the poverty line.<\/p>\n
From a moral point of view people might ask why the poor have
\nhad to pay such a huge human price for a crisis that others
\n(mostly the rich) created?<\/p>\n
Rajiv Lall (Far Eastern Economic Review, Sept. 17, 1998) is
\ncertainly right when he says: \"Those who typically gained the
\nmost in the boom years are not usually the same as those who lose
\nthe most in the bust -- the distributional consequences of
\nadjustments can be socially destabilizing\".<\/p>\n
If inequality continues to prevail in economic life then
\npeople will tend to be indifferent to their nation. As a result,
\nspontaneous nationalism will not exist, no matter how hard the
\ngovernment tries to encourage it.<\/p>\n
Nationalism must be built on a strong foundation. As a
\nsubjective feeling, nationalism has to serve human interests. For
\ninstance, people love to be a part of a nation because they
\nbelieve that the nation will improve their economic welfare and
\nsecurity.<\/p>\n
When nationalism declines it is the government which has the
\nmain responsibility of reactivating it. Good governance capable
\nof protecting citizens from social and economic injustices caused
\nby domestic and global structures is the key to revitalizing
\nnationalism.<\/p>\n
Without good governance nationalism is absurd and meaningless.
\nYou don't need to be a scholar to understand such a simple truth.<\/p>\n
The writer is the head of the school of international
\nrelations at the University of Parahyangan in Bandung and a
\nresearcher at the Parahyangan Center for International Studies
\n(PACIS) at the same university.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/good-governance-is-a-must-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}