RI waiting for a new 'messiah'<\/p>\n
Satish Mishra, Head United Nations Support Facility for
\nIndonesian Recovery, Jakarta, satish.mishra@undp.org<\/p>\n
If we cannot go back in time, we must go forward. If we do
\nnot, the present will devour the future. History is often
\nunforgiving to those who do not learn from the past.<\/p>\n
The leadership and direction that we crave in Indonesia must
\narise out of democratic processes and politics. It is not to be
\nfound in the ranks of men with medals.<\/p>\n
Times have changed. Social values and expectations have
\nchanged. Fairness and justice are no longer words we read in
\nStalinesque constitutions. The world is swept by the new age of
\ninformation and connectedness. Democracy is a very popular
\nconcept these days.<\/p>\n
Democratic polities appeal to different people for different
\nreasons. For some it is a desirable end because it widens
\nindividual freedoms and capabilities. For others democracy also
\nmakes sense as a means of development and economic growth. This
\nis especially important as an economy reaches higher levels of
\nsophistication and division of labor. Modern economies need to
\ncoordinate millions of individual transactions. Democracy
\nprovides the institutional anchor for such a system of individual
\ndecision making.<\/p>\n
A third major reason for preferring democracy as a political
\nsystem is because of the relatively greater stability of
\ndemocratic institutions. This is because democracies are better
\nat dealing with disagreements. Many economists have tried to
\nestimate this stability enhancing properties of democracies. They
\nhave done so with complicated modeling and cross country
\nregressions. They have tried to show that democracies while not
\nalways raising the tempo of economic growth have managed to lower
\neconomic oscillations below the trend line.<\/p>\n
Others have put the point more simply. Democracies are more
\nstable because they are able to evolve and mature without violent
\nrevolutions. As Mancur Olson, one of the most influential of
\ninstitutional economic writers of the day writes:<\/p>\n
\"Not surprisingly, then, capital often flees from countries
\nwith continuing or episodic dictatorships, even when capital has
\ngreat scarcity value in these countries, to the stable
\ndemocracies, even though the latter countries are already
\nrelatively well supplied with capital and thus offer only modest
\nrates of return.\"<\/p>\n
Olson cites that despite the experience of poor countries
\nwhich have grown extraordinarily rapidly when they have a strong
\ndictator with \"unusually good economic policies\", he notes that
\n\"such growth lasts only for the ruling span of one or two
\ndictators.\"<\/p>\n
Not surprisingly \"almost all the countries that have good
\neconomic performance across generations are countries that have
\nstable democratic governments.\"<\/p>\n
In Indonesia today, a large part of the task of obviating
\nfuture systemic crises is to construct institutional structures
\ncapable of withstanding unpredictable shocks. This is why
\npriorities of systemic transition, rather than just economic
\nrecovery, must lie at the heart of a future action agenda.<\/p>\n
What are the priorities so crucial to a successful management
\nof Indonesia's systemic transition?<\/p>\n
The first is clearly a reaffirmation of a commitment to
\ndemocracy. This is fundamental because so much of the ills of the
\npast were rooted in a system of government that centralized
\npolitical and economic decision-making.<\/p>\n
The second key priority is to dismantle the apparatus of crony
\ncapitalism, itself the inevitable by product of authoritarian
\nrule under Soeharto. The central features are: the inter-
\npenetration of military, state and large business interests, the
\nentrenchment of powerful natural resource and infrastructure
\nmonopolies, the suppression of independent labor unions and wage
\nbargaining mechanisms, the abrogation of individual property
\nrights, and entrenchment of a kleptocratic state. The result was
\ngluttony of economic growth with little regard for either its
\nenvironmental consequences or the efficiency with which scarce
\ncapital was being used.<\/p>\n
The third critical priority, as well as a pre-condition for
\ncontinuing systemic transformation is the adoption of a civil-
\nrights based social policy. This is needed for two reasons.
\nFirst, because for all the much vaunted redistributionist
\ninitiatives of the New Order, the system remained in its essence
\na system of wealth concentration. True, Soeharto was not a
\nMobutu. The plunder of the state was regulated by a sophisticated
\nsystem of booty sharing. The number of absolute poor declined
\nsteadily. But real wages remained near subsistence even during
\nthe boom years of Indonesian industry. Industrial assets remained
\nconcentrated in a few families.<\/p>\n
Second, the credibility of an effective systemic transition
\nrequires a clear signal of a break from the past such that the
\nindividual citizen has an open stake in future institutional
\narrangements for wealth sharing and a voice in the making of such
\ndecisions.<\/p>\n
One rather obvious way to do this is to adopt a universalist
\nsocial policy that will proclaim the right of every Indonesian,
\nqua citizen, to have access to minimum levels of education,
\nhealth, social protection, and food. Such a rights based social
\npolicy will signal a regime shift and a barometer by which the
\nsuccess of future governments might be judged.<\/p>\n
A fourth priority for peaceful effective systemic transition
\nis to find ways of preventing social conflicts from spilling over
\ninto national disintegration. Regional decentralization is a move
\nin the right direction, but will mean little unless richer
\nregions are prepared to assist the poorer parts in meeting basic
\nrights and entitlements.<\/p>\n
Clearly, a cross regional consensus on key social priorities
\nis required. An effective way to move this agenda is through the
\norganization of an Indonesian Social Summit to arrive at a common
\nunderstanding of these issues across the regions. The time has
\ncome to balance the center-region forms of communication to a
\nhorizontal dialogue across the region, if necessary with the help
\nof the central government acting in concert with civil society.<\/p>\n
The above is an ambitious agenda. That is how it should be.
\nHistoric crises of the kind that were triggered in 1998 are rare
\nevents. They challenge the very existence of the nation. This is
\nthe time for innovation and boldness. It is a time for rebirth
\nand rebuilding. It is not the time to look for individual escape-
\ngoats and culprits. This is so even when some such as the IMF,
\nthe bureaucracy or the military make such time-honored targets.
\nThis is all a sideshow. The principal task is to devise a
\ndomestic agenda for action in the future. It is time to stop
\nrunning down blind allies.<\/p>\n
The views expressed in this article are strictly personal.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/ri-waiting-for-a-new-messiah-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }