Individual empowerment a must for democratization<\/p>\n
By Donatus K. Marut<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): Debates about the nature of democracy have been
\nlong lasting in political science: between the supporters of
\ndemocracy as government by all adult citizens and supporters of
\ngovernment by elites, or the rule by citizens and the rule by the
\nexperts (Robert Dahl, Democracy and Its Critics, 1989). In most
\ndemocratic countries, the rule by citizens through various
\ndemocratic machines has become the final choice.<\/p>\n
The presence of formal forms of political machines as
\nindicated by the multiparty system and free election
\nsuperficially shows that Indonesia is moving toward democratic
\npolitics. But these formal indicators are not sufficient.<\/p>\n
Indonesian politics is still an elitist game -- the prominent
\npolitical actors are those from urban and central elites. The
\npolitical parties were founded and are chaired by those who are
\nliving in the centers and have minimum access to their
\nconstituents in rural areas and outer islands.<\/p>\n
If democracy is perceived as the rule by all adult citizens,
\nthen democracy is still far away from reality in Indonesia
\nbecause the citizens are in fact still substantially excluded
\nfrom the real political process. This is caused by at least two
\nfactors -- first, because of the strong paternalistic culture in
\nwhich citizens are still bound to patrons and urban elites, and
\nsecond, because of a long repressive-authoritarian regime that
\nhad succeeded in creating floating and politically apathetic
\nmasses. These factors have hindered citizens from becoming
\ncompetent political actors.<\/p>\n
If they participated in the last general election and
\nregistered as members of political parties, it is mostly because
\nof sentimental drives (political euphoria) rather than rational
\nand critical judgment. So the main challenge for developing
\ndemocracy in Indonesia will be to strengthen the capacities or to
\nimprove the competence of its citizens.<\/p>\n
The presence of many political parties has indeed provided
\nmore chances and channels for people to participate with more
\nchoices in the political process. So are also the free operations
\nof organizations that are functioning as semipressure groups,
\nsuch as non-governmental organizations and students'
\norganizations. These social and political organizations are
\nmacro-foundations of democracy. Through these organizations,
\npolitical interests, short-term and long-term, are articulated.
\nThe dynamics of interests articulation will determine the whole
\ndemocratic political processes.<\/p>\n
But these macro-foundations are not sufficient for developing
\na democracy. Organizations established in Indonesian cultural
\nsettings cannot automatically contribute to the development of
\ndemocracy. It is inevitable that the paternalistic culture in
\nsociety is still strong, and this can paralyze the
\ndemocratization process.<\/p>\n
The social and political organizations are various and spread
\nthroughout the country, but if the organizations are established
\non patron-client relations, the organizations could hinder the
\ndemocratization process. What emerges in society is patronage and
\ntotal obedience to the patrons and to the traditional \"consensus\"
\nwhich are accepted without debate as the tying factors of the
\norganizations.<\/p>\n
These tendencies will not only become seeds of oligarchy but
\nalso instruments for establishing parochial and sentimental
\nobedience and bondage. Who appears in politics are not the
\ncitizens but patrons who are able to mobilize supporting masses
\nusing sentimental symbols which do not liberate the citizens but
\ninstead repress them. The symbols can be rooted in religion,
\nethnicity, class and historical romanticism. These engagement
\nsymbols are the main hindering factors of real democracy.<\/p>\n
The last elections showed this tendency. Many political
\nobservers divided the political parties into two main categories:
\nReligion-based parties and nationalist-oriented parties.
\nMeanwhile, the main references for voters to choose parties can
\nbe grouped into three: party leaders, traditional (religious)
\nsentiments, and historical romanticism or nationalism.<\/p>\n
The first group elected parties such as the National Mandate
\nParty (PAN); the second group elected the National Awakening
\nParty (PKB), the United Development Party (PPP), and other small
\nreligious parties; and the third group elected the Indonesian
\nDemocratic Party of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan).<\/p>\n
Even PAN itself, which was assumed to be an open party, is
\nstill dominated by religious groups, particularly members of the
\nsecond largest Muslim organization Muhamadiyah.<\/p>\n
Sentiments toward romantic nationalism, Sukarnoism and
\nantipathy to the ruling government became driving factors for
\npeople to vote for PDI Perjuangan, although most of them are
\nunfamiliar with the party's representatives.<\/p>\n
Citizens' choices were still dominated by sentimental drives
\nrather than rational judgment. This is dangerous because the
\npublic can be fragmented into these in-group sentiments that in
\nturn may create both latent and open conflict in society.
\nTherefore, it is necessary to start developing other crucial
\nfoundations of democracy.<\/p>\n
The basic units of political process in a nation-state are
\nactually individual citizens. Democracy is a struggle for the
\ninterests of individual citizens. That the individuals then use
\norganizations, social and political organizations, to further
\ntheir interests, is part of the democratization process. But the
\nmain key is the individual citizen. Every individual has his\/her
\nown preference in the political process. The presence of
\ndemocratic organizations has to be a consensus or an affinity of
\nthe preferences of all individuals associated with the
\norganizations.<\/p>\n
Macro-foundations -- such as a multiparty system, free
\nelections, a free press and free association -- are weak if they
\nare not supported by strong micro-foundations, namely the
\nindividual citizen in society, whether an ordinary citizen,
\nleader or ruler.<\/p>\n
Strong democracy requires strong micro-foundations --
\nindividual citizens who are capable of making free choices
\nthrough mature and critical judgment without being influenced by
\nbinding and nonliberating symbols. Critical judgment is
\nencouraged if individuals have the capacity to think
\nindependently in determining their life goals, preferences and
\norientation in their lives. Individuals are not intimidated by
\nsentimental symbols that have eliminated their freedom as
\nindividuals.<\/p>\n
To enable the emergence of critical citizens, who are capable
\nof making critical and free choices and decisions, requires
\ncontinuous individual empowerment. Only empowered citizens are
\nconscious of or are able to materialize their free will and are
\nable to make free decisions. The empowerment process is important
\nto break up all false democratic symbols, such as obedience and
\nbondage to organizations and associations that have long bound
\nand enslaved individual citizens.<\/p>\n
To support the individual empowerment process requires
\ncontinuous political education or political dissemination for
\ncitizens. Political education is intended to achieve at least
\nsome preconditions for individual citizens' empowerment.<\/p>\n
First, the development of evaluative capacities of every
\nindividual citizen, that is the capacity to make priorities of
\ntheir involvement in both political and sentimental collective
\nactions. Critical individuals will be able to make judgments on
\nthe achievement of exclusive group objectives and obligations as
\nwell as justice for society at large. Individuals with evaluative
\ncapacities will be able to ascertain criteria before making
\ndecisions on whether to participate in political problems or in
\nother collective actions.<\/p>\n
Second, to make sure that individuals have adequate knowledge.
\nKnowledge is the most important component that influences the
\nroles of individual citizens. Citizens, in order to be able to
\nplay appropriate roles, have to have sufficient knowledge about
\ntheir social and political environments, such as information
\nrelating to policy choices and their impacts or information
\nconcerning group activities or other collective actions and their
\nimpacts.<\/p>\n
Individuals also are encouraged to analyze the knowledge they
\nhave in order to really understand the preferences they chose,
\nand therefore be convinced that their choices are the preferences
\nthat have been critically judged.<\/p>\n
Third, because political action is part of collective actions,
\nwhile collective actions are part of the actions of the
\nindividual citizen, individual citizens have to also be equipped
\nwith a cognitive map that will help them decide whether a problem
\nor an issue is really political that needs mass collective action
\nor only an individual action or action of an organization or
\ngroup within society for exclusive aims of the groups.<\/p>\n
This empowerment process of individual citizens is important
\nto empower people in making their own political choices and to
\nprevent the development of a democracy that merely prioritizes
\nmass mobilization. People are supposed to participate in politics
\nnot because of strong obedience or bondage to organizations'
\nsymbols or organizations' patrons, but because they have their
\ncritical and free choices according to their own preferences.
\nWith these capacities, each citizen will be able to make free
\ndecisions in determining their involvement in political roles.
\nThe roles will be adequate and competent as well as conducive to
\nthe achievement of stability and the effectiveness of democratic
\ninstitutions.<\/p>\n
This is the arena where social and political organizations
\nshould play in order to strengthen the democratization process,
\nnamely the empowerment of individual citizens through continuous
\npolitical education, not binding the citizens to obedience or
\nbondage to the organizations that in turn paralyze their freedom.
\nWithout empowerment of individual citizens, a free political
\nprocess will become only a struggle between one mass group
\nagainst the others, that in turn would ruin democracy.<\/p>\n
The writer is a development observer, active in political
\neducation in grassroots communities, who lives in Jakarta.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/individual-empowerment-a-must-for-democratization-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}