RI development 'trilogy' revisited<\/p>\n
By Arief Budiman<\/p>\n
MELBOURNE (JP): Having recently celebrated our 52nd
\nanniversary of independence, it may be useful to reflect on what
\nwe have achieved or failed to achieve in the nation's pursuit of
\na \"just and prosperous society\".<\/p>\n
This reflection, hopefully, will foster awareness
\nof the most important problems to be solved in the near future.<\/p>\n
Taking a look at the most oft-repeated political jargon -- a
\n\"just and prosperous society\" -- it is curious that our founding
\nfathers put \"just\" before the \"prosperous\" aspect of society.<\/p>\n
Does this mean our forbearers were basically saying that a
\njust society is more important and even a necessary pre-condition
\nto create a prosperous society?<\/p>\n
Before we answer the above question, let us first discuss the
\nnotion of justice.<\/p>\n
To many, a \"just society\" is seen more as an economic term.
\nThus a just society is defined as a society in which all people
\nenjoy the benefits of economic development equally. The gap
\nbetween the rich and the poor is not that dramatic.<\/p>\n
However, I would argue that it also includes a political
\njustice because this notion of economic justice is very tightly
\nrelated to political justice as well.<\/p>\n
In this sense, political justice means that people share
\npolitical power equally. Power is thus concentrated neither in
\nthe hand of an individual nor that of a group in society.<\/p>\n
Although economic justice can be separated from political
\njustice, as mentioned earlier, the two are basically
\ninterrelated.<\/p>\n
Without having access to political power, it will be difficult
\nfor the poor to enhance their economic situation. Similarly, by
\nenhancing their economic condition the poor will increase their
\npolitical power.<\/p>\n
So now we have three notions for the most important elements
\nin a development strategy: prosperity and economic and political
\njustice. Let us elaborate on how these three factors are being
\nreflected in developing countries, especially Indonesia.<\/p>\n
Now we come to our question of whether a just society is the
\nnecessary pre-condition for a prosperous society. There have been
\nmany cases, especially in underdeveloped countries, whereby a
\nprosperous society (at least as shown by its macroeconomic
\nindicators) has been successfully created by exploiting the weak
\nand the poor.<\/p>\n
The gross national and domestic products are high although
\nthere is no democracy and economic equality. Rich and super-rich
\npeople exist together with poor people and coupled with an
\nauthoritarian state. Thus, a prosperous society is possible
\nwithout the necessity of creating a just society first, both
\npolitically and economically.<\/p>\n
However, when we look deeper, we can question the
\nsustainability of this kind of society, especially the social
\nsustainability.<\/p>\n
We already know the notion of environmental sustainability. We
\ncould create a rich society by exploiting our natural resources.
\nHowever, at a certain point in time \"nature would strike back\"
\nand this society would suffer a continuous environmental
\ncrisis that would drain all the wealth it has acquired.<\/p>\n
Similar to this notion is social sustainability. Economic
\ngrowth without equity, coupled with an authoritarian regime, is
\npossible until one day a social revolution would destroy what the
\ncountry had already achieved.<\/p>\n
Thus, in a sense, although the creation of a just society,
\nboth economically and politically, could be postponed, it could
\nnot be totally neglected. At one stage in the development process
\nthis factor has to be adequately dealt with.<\/p>\n
Let us look at the Southeast Asian region. Some of these
\ncountries have previously succeeded in developing their economies
\nwithout providing either economic or political justices.<\/p>\n
Fortunately in some of these countries, democratization
\noccurred before the destructive political cum social
\nrevolutions erupted. And slowly but surely these countries,
\nequipped with their newly found democracy, have started to
\nundertake the policy of economic growth with equity.<\/p>\n
Thailand and the Philippines are two cases in point, while
\nMalaysia seems to be cautiously combining both economic growth
\nand political democracy cum economic equity at the same time.<\/p>\n
Singapore places its emphasis more on economic growth and
\nequity and avoids political democracy. (Lee Kuan-Yew has been
\nquoted as saying that what the developing world needs to develop
\nis not democracy but discipline).<\/p>\n
People seem to accept that they sacrifice their political
\nrights for material benefits in Singapore. However, even if it
\navoids genuine democracy, the Singapore government has given its
\npeople at least the symbolic processes of democracy (by
\nundertaking general elections periodically) and a strong
\nimpression that the law is highly respected in the country (by
\ntaking every political case into the court).<\/p>\n
Thus, different countries have their own combinations of
\nemphasis on the ingredients of development, whether it be
\neconomic growth, economic equity or political democracy.<\/p>\n
But one thing is certain, they never neglect any of these
\nthree elements for too long in order to safeguard the continuity
\nof their development processes.<\/p>\n
When Thailand under its military regime or the Philippines
\nunder president Ferdinand Marcos neglected the political
\ndemocracy aspect of their development (and also the economic
\nequity to a certain extent), what they got were student protests
\nand the rise of people power which successfully replaced the then
\nauthoritarian leaders.<\/p>\n
Let us now return to Indonesia.<\/p>\n
How does this country fare in respect to these three important
\nelements of development: economic and political justice and
\neconomic prosperity?<\/p>\n
The New Order government under President Soeharto seems to be
\nvery much aware of these elements. No later than 1974, after the
\nMalari student riots, the so-called Development Trilogy was
\nformulated.<\/p>\n
This trilogy precisely addressed these three important
\nelements of development, namely: economic growth, political
\nstability and income distribution.<\/p>\n
It is clear that the government has nominated economic growth
\nas its top priority. To achieve this it is stated that political
\nstability is the necessary pre-condition.<\/p>\n
This means that the New Order government feels that democracy
\nhas to be avoided if it creates political instability. Then,
\nwhile economic development in a politically stable environment is
\nbeing conducted, income distribution is also pursued. This is of
\ncourse quite legitimate because every nation has its own unique
\ncombination to implement its strategy.<\/p>\n
In terms of economic growth, this government seems to be doing
\nfine. Since the 1970s, the annual rate of growth of the national
\neconomy is around 7 percent to 8 percent, with the inflation rate
\nstaying at one digit. It is difficult to deny that this country
\nhas been getting richer.<\/p>\n
In terms of income distribution we are having some problems.
\nIt seems that the present government is not making its income
\ndistribution policy a priority.<\/p>\n
Since the late 1960s, it has been clear that economic growth
\nis the strategic target of this New Order government and it is
\nprepared to sacrifice income distribution if necessary.<\/p>\n
Income distribution has been, so far, political
\nrhetoric only. It is not on the real political and economic
\nagenda. Now and then, the conglomerates are summoned by the
\nPresident and asked to give some contribution to the poor. At the
\nsame time, they continue to acquire the economically strategic
\nland of the poor and constantly deny workers' rights and fair
\nwages.<\/p>\n
Thus, although the poor are getting better as a result of the
\nsuccessful economic growth, the rich have been getting much
\nricher. The gap between the rich and the poor has been
\ndramatically widened.<\/p>\n
Also, although the government keeps saying that the number of
\npeople living under the poverty line is diminishing, critical
\neconomists keep on arguing that the criterion used to determine
\nthis poverty line is unrealistically very low and the
\nnumber of these people is still very high.<\/p>\n
In conclusion, unlike the success of economic growth in the
\ncase of income distribution, the achievement of the New Order
\ngovernment has been, at least, doubtful.<\/p>\n
In this kind of society where a wide gap exists between the
\nrich and the poor, the only way to rule is to use an
\nauthoritarian hand. It is not a choice, it is a necessity.<\/p>\n
Thus, in the Development Trilogy, the component
\nthat is pursued is political stability. Therefore, it is natural
\nthat the military is one of the strongest pillars, together with
\nthe economic technocrats, of the New Order government.<\/p>\n
Under the leadership of Gen. Soeharto, the New Order
\ngovernment has never faced any significant political
\nchallenge. Soeharto has been president for six terms, and is
\nseeking reelection for his seventh term next year.<\/p>\n
It is not surprising that Soeharto, with his 30-year record in
\noffice, has become the second-longest serving president in the
\nworld after Fidel Castro.<\/p>\n
However, this tight political control has created some
\nproblems. Together with the failure of income distribution, there
\nwill be a serious problem in the near future if it is not handled
\nwisely.<\/p>\n
Unlike Singapore, where the denial of democracy has been
\ntraded for economic prosperity for the people, Indonesia is
\ncloser to the Philippine model under president Marcos in
\nwhich the lack of democracy was coupled with a wide gap between
\nthe rich and poor.<\/p>\n
The brutality in recent general election campaigns, the riots
\nthat have preceded it, the increasing political tension after the
\nelections are all signals that something bigger is in the offing.<\/p>\n
These two factors will act as a time-bomb that can explode at
\nany time if the present government does not act swiftly to
\ndiffuse it.<\/p>\n
The important question is: does the New Order government get
\nthe message?<\/p>\n
The writer is professor of Indonesian studies at Melbourne
\nUniversity.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/ri-development-trilogy-revisited-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}