RI should decentralize system<\/p>\n
By Imron Cotan<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): In less than two hundred days, the international
\ncommunity will enter the 21st century, leaving behind the current
\nsecond millennium which is marred by conflict and posing
\nunprecedented challenges to human beings.<\/p>\n
All nation-states, particularly Indonesia, should fully
\nprepare themselves before entering this new era of obscurity. A
\nfundamental question needs to be raised as to how Indonesia as a
\nnation-state will react to this rapidly-changing international
\nenvironment in order to survive in an uncertain and challenging
\nthird millennium.<\/p>\n
One needs to reflect on the history of human beings to get a
\nclear picture of the subject. It was, indeed, painfully tainted
\nwith many bloody conflicts inflicting incalculable damage upon
\nmankind and its environment. It is still fresh in our memory that
\nduring the cold war era, although those superpower countries were
\nrelatively successful in avoiding direct conflict and maintaining
\nstable yet awkward relations, they managed to manipulate their
\npolitical allies to become involved with, and engaged in, proxy
\nwars.<\/p>\n
The expansion of ideologies, western-based or eastern-based,
\nhas been pinpointed as the root of these proxy wars. True as it
\nmight be, these superpower countries have used the cold war as a
\npretext to develop sophisticated weapons, especially weapons of
\nmass destruction. These include chemical, biological and nuclear
\nweapons and their delivery systems.<\/p>\n
In the 1970s and 1980s, these countries, especially the United
\nStates and the former Soviet Union developed sophisticated
\nweapons of mass destruction capable of destroying the world in a
\nshort period of time. But sanity prevailed and these superpowers
\nmanaged not to use them, thereby saving mankind and its entire
\ncivilization from being annihilated. But proxy wars have used the
\nconflicting states as a testing ground for their newly inverted
\nconventional weapons.<\/p>\n
The simmering tensions between the Western and Eastern blocs
\nand the open conflicts among those proxies have diluted the
\ninternational community's attention from the basic and recurrent
\nissues, originating from the French Revolution (1789), namely:
\n"liberte, egalite et fratenite". At this particular juncture,
\nthese issues were suppressed below the surface and the threat to
\nthe survival of nation-states was perceived as coming from a
\nhead-on collision between blocs, involving the use of weapons of
\nmass destruction.<\/p>\n
When the cold war ended, the international social, political
\nand economic spheres went through fundamental and rapid changes,
\nbeyond people's imagination. From a political perspective, the
\ncollapse of the former Soviet Union and the political
\nindependence of Eastern and Central European nations was regarded
\nas the victory of democracy against communism. But from an
\neconomic viewpoint, it was perceived as the victory of capitalism
\nor the free market economy against a closed and centralized
\neconomic system.<\/p>\n
In the context of development, expansion and change of the
\ninternational society or system is related to the resurgence of
\nthese recurrent issues. They have resurfaced in their wildest
\nforms and manifested in so many other issues, including:
\ndemocratization, liberalization, human rights, labor standards,
\nsocial clauses and the free market economy. They have become the
\nbone of contention not only between or among nation-states but
\nwithin nation-states as well and, to some extent, caused the
\ndisintegration of countries as was the case in the former
\nYugoslavia, Somalia and Burundi.<\/p>\n
With today's information revolution, these recurrent issues
\nrecognize no borders, especially when the major countries
\nstrongly consider them as: "les affaires mondiale" over which
\nthey think they have the right to interfere and mingle in other
\ncountries' affairs. The high hopes expressed at the beginning of
\nthe post cold war era asserting that the world would enter an era
\nof cooperation and mutual partnership have gone unheeded.
\nInstead, conflict persisted and was further aggravated by the
\nfierce competition among nations in trying to secure world
\nresources for their own benefits, disregarding environmental
\nsustainability and the interests of others, especially those of
\ndeveloping countries.<\/p>\n
Consisting of thousands of islands and ethnicities, Indonesia
\nis now being confronted with this delicate international
\nenvironment. Our nation's history does not have an excellent
\nrecord, particularly in terms of internal dynamics as it was
\ntainted by separatist movements.<\/p>\n
We have gone through and are still experiencing a series of
\ninternal conflicts, such as East Timor, Irian Jaya and Aceh.
\nWorse still, some quarters have persistently tried to interfere
\nwith our domestic problems, using those recurrent issues as the
\npretext. The latest enactment of a resolution in the House of
\nRepresentatives in the United States criticizing Indonesia's
\nhuman rights record in East Timor is one of many examples.
\nFortunately, President Soeharto has moved to the level playing
\nfield between the two countries by canceling the purchase of F-15
\nfighter planes and canceling the E-IMET.<\/p>\n
The delicate international environmental situation which now
\nconfronts Indonesia has prompted us to raise a fundamental
\nquestion as to how Indonesia could enter the uncertain third
\nmillennium as a united nation-state. This question is indeed
\ndifficult to answer. To start with, Indonesia as a nation-state
\nshould quickly adapt itself with this rapidly-changing world. It
\ncan only do this by opening its social, political and economic
\nsystems, thereby allowing people to participate more in the
\ndecision-making process which would lead to transparency and
\npolitical accountability. The other alternative would be to let
\nIndonesia disintegrate into smaller subnation-states, as Hazel
\nHenderson predicted in her book titled Building A Win-Win World:
\nLife Beyond Global Economic Warfare (Berret-Koehler Publisher,
\n1996). This would attempt to nurture the culture of cooperation
\nand avoid conflict. The price would be expensive for the nation's
\nfounding fathers and the Indonesia people, who have made
\ntremendous sacrifices to gain independence from the colonial
\npowers and to maintain this country's unity.<\/p>\n
Hazel Henderson's thesis asserted that to succeed in the third
\nmillennium, nation-states need to become smaller entities as was
\nthe case in the first millennium. This cannot be entertained by
\nIndonesia, for it would seriously damage our nationalism and
\nsense of unity (small welfare subnation-state versus
\nnationalism).<\/p>\n
But we can opt for a combination of the two. To survive the
\nthird millennium, Indonesia should decentralize its political
\nsystem, giving more power to provincial or local governments.
\nThis should be coupled by the broader participation of people
\nfrom the grassroots in the decision-making process which leads to
\ntransparency and political accountability.<\/p>\n
The writer is a former United Nations Disarmament Fellow and
\nis an expert on international peace and security affairs,
\nresiding in Jakarta.<\/p>\n
Window: The delicate international environmental situation which
\nnow confronts Indonesia has prompted us to raise a fundamental
\nquestion as to how Indonesia could enter the uncertain third
\nmillennium as a united nation-state.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/ri-should-decentralize-system-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}