Political pacts have yet to include the people<\/p>\n
By Olle Tornquist<\/p>\n
OSLO, Norway (JP): Time moves swiftly in Indonesia. Just two
\nyears ago, the Asian crisis put an end to authoritarian
\ndevelopment and the hallelujah choir fell silent. The dominant
\nWest was as bewildered as the oppressed opposition was weak. Six
\nmonths later, the students instead ensured that Soeharto was
\ndeposed and that most agreed that democracy was the only
\nsolution. The military was weakened. The monopolists were shaken.
\nOrdinary people demanded those responsible to be held
\naccountable. With the June elections this year, the world's
\nlargest democracy was born. But now the party is over and the day
\nafter is already here.<\/p>\n
Soeharto's \"new order\" has been replaced by Abdurrahman
\nWahid's (Gus Dur's) \"pact order.\" The people voted their protest
\nand won the election, but the elite horse-traded their stakes and
\nwon the presidency. All the important groups -- including the
\nmilitary, the former ruling Golkar party and the conservative
\nMuslims -- are part of the new government. The genuine democrats
\nare essentially marginalized or else free to pursue their private
\nprojects in civil society. So who has the time and the
\ninclination to develop political democracy? Even the West lost
\ninterest as soon as the election was over.<\/p>\n
Certainly, Gus Dur is the charming and liberal Muslim that the
\nworld needs. But even if he is not, as people say, crazy about
\nwomen like Sukarno, crazy about money like Soeharto or absolutely
\ncrazy like B.J. Habibie, he is instead driving everyone crazy
\nwith his capricious maneuvers. And so, democracy is no longer
\nseen as a solution. The elite now worry instead about how to keep
\nthe country together if Aceh is given free rein, how to pay all
\nthe debts if the provinces are allowed to share revenues, and how
\nto constrain the fury of the people when subsidies are withdrawn.<\/p>\n
The civilian Defense Minister Juwono Sudarsono has gone so far
\nas to request a nearly doubled budget in exchange for keeping the
\nmilitary out of politics and the economy, and is threatening a
\ncoup if the politicians cannot create a \"healthy and strong\"
\npolitical atmosphere. So while the media are sending warnings of
\na breakdown and neighboring countries are having nightmares about
\nboat refugees and pirates, \"realists\", including in the West, are
\ndelicately refraining from \"provoking\" the military by pointing
\nout their crimes against human rights.<\/p>\n
This position is, of course, wrong on the facts.
\nEmbarrassingly enough, for instance, the same national commission
\non human rights that was considered by the West just a few months
\nago to be uncritical, is now indicating that the military is so
\npolitically, economically and organizationally weakened that no
\nconcessions are necessary. First and foremost, however, the
\nposition is a political catastrophe. For when Sudarsono is
\nspeaking up and others are mumbling about the weak capacity of
\ndemocracy to uphold stability, they rely on the same
\njustification as the West did when supporting Soeharto: that
\ndemocracy is impossible before economic and social development
\ncontrolled by the elite has created a strong middle class with a
\nstrong civil society. But not even 30 years of such modernization
\nhelped. Democracy did not emerge until the project broke down.<\/p>\n
If we wish to learn from history, we must realize that the
\nroot of the present situation is not the absence of state
\ncontrol, but rather the lack of democratic institutions and
\npeople's capacity to use them. The first problem, then, is that
\nthe former powers have been given new legitimacy. Golkar is
\nrecovering quickly. The students' discovery of the falsified
\nhistory has not brought new curricula and cultural
\ntransformation. The elite is avoiding the accounting of decades
\nof state violence that could give common people the courage to
\nbuild democracy and the country the chance to regain its former
\nstature. Corruption is condemned and decentralization commended,
\nbut there is no policy to promote the social and political
\nmovements that could bring forward a society founded on the rule
\nof law and counteract the power of local bosses.<\/p>\n
The second problem is that there is only a political pact
\namong the elite, no social pact with the people. Consequently,
\nthe prerequisites are lacking to handle social and economic
\nsetbacks through, for instance, negotiated agreements between the
\nstate, labor and capital rather than fighting in the streets. The
\nMinistry of Labor is still unprioritised and is controlled by
\nGolkar. The Ministry of Social Services has been disbanded (a
\nfeat unmatched by even Margaret Thatcher) with its duties
\ndispatched to the districts, which have little administrative
\ncapacity, and the civil society, which mainly consists of
\ncompeting religious groups that vulnerable people are now
\nbecoming even more dependent upon.<\/p>\n
The third problem is that both unitarians who sing the praises
\nof nationalism and federalists who call Indonesia a colonial
\nconstruction seem to believe that the country will fall apart
\nwithout stringent central control. Few are pausing to consider
\nthat Indonesia grew forth from the anti-colonial struggle for
\nfreedom and democracy. Few are taking note of the fact that
\ntoday's problems are due to the steamrolling of democracy since
\nthe late 1950's. And few are discussing whether the problems and
\ndemands at the local level might be better resolved through a
\nreturn to democratic element in the original national project
\nrather than to despotic modernism in Jakarta or rivaling ethnic
\nand religious communities in the provinces.<\/p>\n
The vacillating between the thesis that elitist development is
\nthe only path to democracy and the idea that rapid
\ndemocratization is possible through import of human rights, civil
\nsociety, and free elections must come to an end! The first path
\nends with dictatorship and the second is inadequate. The
\nhistorical compromise would rather be if the latter were used to
\ncreate the prerequisites for democratic development with which
\nthe former has failed.<\/p>\n
The writer is Professor of political science and development
\nresearch, at the University of Oslo. The article was first
\npublished in Svenska Dagbladet, Stockholm.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/political-pacts-have-yet-to-include-the-people-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}