Indonesia's nation-building process at the crossroads<\/p>\n
By Aleksius Jemadu<\/p>\n
This is the second of two articles on nation-building.<\/p>\n
BANDUNG (JP): Many foreign observers applaud the economic
\nperformance of the New Order government over the last three
\ndecades. Indonesia is frequently mentioned as a good example for
\nother developing countries in overcoming problems of poverty and
\nrapid population growth. I would argue that the greatest
\nchallenge for Indonesia in the future will not come from outside
\nbut from within. In other words, in order to be well prepared in
\ndealing with external economic and political challenges, we need
\nto solve some fundamental problems regarding the sustainability
\nor our political system and the cohesiveness of our pluralistic
\nsociety.<\/p>\n
In one way or another the occurrence of the social unrest
\nthroughout the country recently has had a tremendous impact upon
\nthe prospect of these two critical issues in our political life.
\nWith respect to the sustainability of the political system, the
\nmain question is whether the existing political format has the
\ncapacity to cope with the dynamics of pluralistic interests or
\nour society. Or, is our political system is only effective for
\nthe preservation of the political and economic interests of the
\nruling elite? What kind of political management should we use so
\nthat the diversity of Indonesian society might become an asset
\ninstead of political liability?<\/p>\n
The nature of the above questions clearly indicates the
\nstrategic of our political elite. Given the patrimonial
\ncharacteristic of our society, they are in a good position to
\nexercise their indispensable statesmanship when the whole nation
\nhas to decide its future. In this regard, there are several
\npoints that need to be considered.<\/p>\n
First, the government should be humble enough to admit that
\nthe political system is indeed in need of reforms. Primary
\nattention should be given to the transparency of the political
\nsystem. Reform would be mainly concerned with the openness of the
\nruling elite toward criticism by different political groups in
\nsociety.<\/p>\n
Unfortunately, the phenomenon of nepotism, which is said to be
\nquite evident in the provisional list of the legislative
\ncandidates, could jeopardize the openness of the political
\nsystem. Moreover, it seems that our bureaucrats are reluctant to
\ncorrect their superiors even though they know there are obvious
\nirregularities or infractions present. It is almost predictable
\nthat all those candidates whose promotions are based on personal
\nor familial relationships will not be able to independently
\nexercise their legislative tasks because they have moral
\nobligations to serve their masters or patrons.<\/p>\n
Second, there should be empowerment at the grassroots level by
\nincorporating voluntary organizations into the process of
\neconomic development especially in rural areas. Unfortunately, up
\nto now relations between the government and non-governmental
\norganizations are characterized by prejudice and cynicism instead
\nof cooperation and mutual trust. There is visible evidence the
\ntwo sides need to increase dialog in dealing with development
\nproblems. The government is expected to communicate its goodwill
\nto alleviate poverty. The government should convince NGOs that
\ntheir participation in alleviating poverty is indispensable.
\nConversely, NGOs need to show their sincerity in being
\ntrustworthy partners and try to prove their professionalism in
\nmanaging development programs. The combination of the potential
\nof the two will certainly maximize the empowerment of the people
\nin the development process.<\/p>\n
Third, overcoming the problem of economic inequality caused by
\nthe capitalistic nature of our economic development is never
\neasy. Neither is it easy to change the government's policy
\npriorities. However, something must be done to stop the gap
\nbetween the rich and poor from widening. No matter how serious
\nthe government is with its policies to alleviate poverty at the
\nrural level through and \"compulsory\" contributions from
\nbusinesspeople, it is obvious that so long as the structural
\nconstraints in the process of economic development are not
\nimproved, social and economic inequality is here to stay.
\nProblems of inequality cannot be solved by charitable approaches.<\/p>\n
The root of social and economic injustices can be found in the
\napproach used in making and implementing development policies.
\nOver the last three decades the government has been determined
\nthat big business activities get priority in order to enlarge the
\n\"development pie\" before it is distributed.<\/p>\n
Unfortunately, as the conglomerates grow bigger and bigger,
\nthe common people get less opportunity to increase their
\npurchasing power in coping with the ever increasing price of
\nconsumer goods. The critical masses are even more frustrated that
\ncollusion and nepotism have become normal practices within the
\nbureaucracy. One does not need to be a social psychologist to
\nbelieve that once there is a trigger then an explosion becomes
\ninevitable.<\/p>\n
It follows, quite reasonably, that the problem is not so much
\nwith the weakening of nationalism but more with the growing
\nalienation of the people from the prevailing political and
\neconomic systems. The people will tend to be apathetic with the
\npolitical system which, in their view, works against their basic
\ninterests.<\/p>\n
Fourth, a good and effective function of local government
\ncould do a lot in improving the credibility of the central
\ngovernment in the eyes of the people in the regions. So far,
\nadministrations at regional level are conditioned to be dependent
\nupon central government policies. They are required to implement
\nthose policies in accordance with the wish of the central
\ngovernment.<\/p>\n
As a result, local administrations represent the interests of
\nthe central government rather than those of local citizens. The
\ndependence of the administrations is partly caused by the fact
\nthat the appointment of local leaders (governors and regents) is
\noften executed to fit the political preference of the central
\nelite with the effect that merit considerations are put aside.<\/p>\n
Professionalism and democratic process should become primary
\nconsiderations in appointing local leaders so that are able to
\ndevelop an effective leadership at the local level and more local
\naspirations can be communicated into the national political
\nsystem.<\/p>\n
In addition, there is an increasingly convincing argument that
\nafter a long period of economic growth, Indonesia needs to
\nenlarge the basis of its economic development. Such an
\nenlargement would be unthinkable without the participation of the
\ngovernment at regional level. It is even argued that the key to
\nour sustained growth is more revolution of power to regional
\nadministrations. Otherwise the central government would be
\noverburdened with financial problems and bureaucratic
\nbottlenecks.<\/p>\n
Finally, the Indonesian political system should learn how to
\nmanage conflict in a pluralistic society. There is a close link
\nbetween modes of governance and the susceptibility of a
\npluralistic society to ethnic and religious extremism. We have to
\nadmit that ethnic and religious conflicts are real in a changing
\nsociety such as ours. Government leaders should learn how to
\nmanage those conflicts so they do not lead to violence and
\ndestructiveness.<\/p>\n
Genuine national unity can only be achieved if all social and
\npolitical groups are willing to live together and have a strong
\ncommitment to maintain their sense of togetherness. Therefore,
\nknowing each other is really a must in a pluralistic society.
\nThis is the only way to prevent ethnic and religious prejudices.
\nOtherwise, our society will become increasingly vulnerable to
\npolitical rumors and other irresponsible manipulation of
\ninformation.<\/p>\n
Judging from the frequency and intensity of the recent riots,
\nit is high time the country reflect on the question of whether or
\nnot it is on the right path to a prosperous and just society
\nbased on Pancasila. Without such reflection our nation will soon
\nappear to be going nowhere. As a result the process of nation-
\nbuilding will be replaced by one of nation-destroying.<\/p>\n
There should be an honest reassessment of our social and
\neconomic progress so that we know the real agenda to be worked
\nout in the 21st century. It is believed one of the tremendous
\nchallenges faced by the post-cold war world is how to manage
\ninterval conflicts in many developing countries as part of their
\nnation and state formation.<\/p>\n
It would be wise if the government pioneered and opened
\nsincere discussions in which the Army, politicians,
\nintellectuals, students, professionals, religious leaders, trade
\nunions, mass organizations can share their opinions regarding the
\ndirections of our political development. As a developing nation
\nwe need shared knowledge and understanding about our future. Our
\nability to compete with other countries in the process of
\nglobalization will depend on the cohesiveness of our pluralistic
\nsociety and the way the political system accommodates the ever
\nchanging aspirations of the people. Could this be our common
\nchallenge?<\/p>\n
The writer is a lecturer with the Faculty of Social and
\nPolitical Science of the Catholic University of Parahyangan
\nBandung.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/indonesias-nation-building-process-at-the-crossroads-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}