Secession: RI's democracy dilemma<\/p>\n
By Sidhesh Kaul<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): The post-Soeharto era has seen Indonesia
\nengulfed in a spate of separatist struggles. The recent success
\nof the Timor referendum has given fresh impetus to the fires of
\nsecessionist movements which continue to burn bright in Aceh,
\nMaluku and Irian Jaya.<\/p>\n
The fires are beyond concessions and compromises and reason
\nseems to have fled to more nourishing climes. The secession
\ndebate has provoked nationalists and democrats alike to endorse
\nthe use of repressive force as a means of preserving territorial
\nand national integrity and unity.<\/p>\n
But it appears that every bullet that pierces a secessionist's
\nheart steels the resolve of a thousand others. All this at a time
\nwhen the government is desperately trying to resuscitate its'
\nflagging economy as well as maintain political stability, in the
\nface of severe international pressure which expects President
\nWahid's government to walk the economic-political-human rights
\ntightrope with the agility of a seasoned acrobat.<\/p>\n
In a democratic form of government it is impossible to follow
\nthe Utopian-like restrictive tenets of Aristotelian polity.
\nDemocracy, whilst bolstering the tyranny of the majority,
\noverlooks the aspirations of the minority, and when the state
\nadopts a step-motherly attitude toward the minorities it
\nunwittingly provides the impetus for secessionism.<\/p>\n
The independence struggle united Indonesia against a common
\nenemy -- the colonizers -- but with the advent of the post-
\nindependence era and the petering away of internal threats, the
\ngovernment had the golden opportunity of uniting free Indonesia
\nagainst a common enemy -- poverty and backwardness.<\/p>\n
Instead, the Indonesian government chased shadows on the wall
\nand fought battles against enemies, both real and imagined, as a
\nmeans of building a stranglehold on Indonesia's power structures
\nwith the help of the military. The direct consequence of this
\napproach has been a skewed development approach that largely
\nignored the outer islands.<\/p>\n
During the three decades of the New Order rule, the Java-
\ncentric government's lop-sided development program largely
\nignored the aspirations of the far-flung regions and these
\npolicies, and in turn, nurtured a deep-seated resentment for the
\ncentral government.<\/p>\n
Promises of autonomy, devolvement of power and sharing of
\nrevenues have been made in the past as well but never acted upon
\n-- the long history of apathy of the Java-centric government has
\nnurtured a feeling of betrayal.<\/p>\n
This resentment, whilst the New Order was still in power, was
\ncarefully lidded by repressive means. With the demise of the New
\nOrder this resentment has become more vociferous and
\nunfortunately, violent.<\/p>\n
For Indonesian democrats, addressing this historical baggage
\nof grievances poses another dilemma. Make amends in the
\ndevelopmental policies for the outer regions and risk the wrath
\nof the ruling majority, or preserve the status quo and risk
\ninternational condemnation.<\/p>\n
Democracy propagates the tyranny of the majority and the
\nquestion of accommodating the demands and aspirations of every
\nstruggling minority plagues every existing democracy in existence
\nand this highlights another aspect of the dilemma.<\/p>\n
In every society there will always be a small group of people
\nwho perceive themselves as different. The \"differences\", in
\naddition to historical and other socio-cultural reasons, being
\naggravated by the skewed attention of the state and which, in
\nturn, fuels separatism.<\/p>\n
When should a government sit up and take notice before this
\n\"feeling\" crosses the threshold of civility?<\/p>\n
Should the government wait for bomb blasts and destruction as
\nan effective signal of dissatisfaction before any measures are
\nundertaken?<\/p>\n
Secession defies democracy in many aspects and poses a dilemma
\nfor the proponents of Indonesia's fledgling democracy. The
\nconfusion arises, mainly from the conflict between the need to
\npreserve territorial integrity and unity and the need to address
\nthe grievances of separatist elements, without having to resort
\nto the persuasive powers of brutal and violent repression.<\/p>\n
The freedom to secede, by bloodshed or by more peaceful means,
\nis not acceptable within the theoretical constructs of a
\ndemocratic form of government.<\/p>\n
In a democracy the basic assumption that the \"demos\", or the
\ndecision making unit, remain the same between decisions, does not
\ntheoretically allow the alteration of this unit, and hence the
\nconclusion that secession (which is an act of altering the
\n\"demos\") is prohibited.<\/p>\n
Nationalists would tend to agree with this theoretical
\nconstruct in the same vein as did President Abraham Lincoln when
\nhe brushed aside secessionist struggles by saying that: \"It
\npresents the question, whether discontented individuals, too few
\nin numbers to control administration ... can always ... break up
\ntheir government, and thus practically put an end to free
\ngovernment upon the earth.\"<\/p>\n
Over the ages nationalists and democrats have conveniently
\nhidden behind the sacred veil of this anti-secessionist
\ntheoretical construct and denied struggling peoples the right to
\nself-determination.<\/p>\n
Pacifism and democracy work only in the case of smaller
\nnations, with more or less homogeneous peoples, but not for
\nterritorially larger democracies with a diverse ethnicity and
\nnon-homogeneous populations such as Indonesia.<\/p>\n
In a large and diverse democracy such as Indonesia's, unless
\nthere are effective pressure relief valves, the complaints of the
\nminority are typically treated as whispers in the wind.<\/p>\n
Regional autonomy is only part of the solution. The process of
\ndevolvement of power has to go hand in hand with reforms in the
\nelectoral process that would give direct power to the people.<\/p>\n
In the absence of reforms in the electoral process, \"regional
\nautonomy\" overtures are going to be perceived as another Java-
\ncentric ploy towards empty mollification -- all style and no
\nsubstance.<\/p>\n
The core of the issue is that pro-democracy proponents are
\nallergic to secessionism and this stems more from the fear of the
\neffect rather than the act itself.<\/p>\n
A secessionist struggle does not overthrow the existing
\ngovernment but instead only carves a territory for itself. This
\nis another aspect of the dilemma. Democracy is a system that
\nencourages autonomy for individuals and groups, as well as
\nembracing change as a vibrant media for actualization and
\nempowerment.<\/p>\n
But on the other hand, democracy abhors secession. If
\nsecession is viewed stoically as simply an innovative measure for
\n\"new state\" creation then the logical conclusion is that
\ndemocracy abhors innovation as well.<\/p>\n
The conspiracy that has been unwittingly hatched by willing
\npartners -- democracy and nationalism -- has generated a certain
\nacceptable level of status quo in the political order.<\/p>\n
The ensuing climate does not favor any change and secession,
\nas a direct consequence, can hence only be a child of violence.<\/p>\n
But principally we all know that neither innovation (an
\nessential ingredient for civilizations to evolve) or \"new states\"
\nare bad.<\/p>\n
The natural abhorrence to secessionism can only be attributed
\nto deeply embedded primordial fears of loss of territory and the
\nimpact that a \"break-away\" nation would have on the status quo.
\nThe very action of prohibiting secessionism just because it is
\nnot compatible with the best traditions of western liberal
\ndemocratic norms would not pass the ordinary test of moral
\nlegitimacy.<\/p>\n
The assumption that society is a static animal must be
\nchallenged and the old molds of decaying political principles
\nwould have to be reassessed and, if need be, cast away.<\/p>\n
Innovation must be embraced and Indonesia must tread the path
\nof selfless pacifism and mutual co-existence. This is the path of
\nthe millennium and Indonesia has a golden opportunity to lead the
\nway, statesmanlike, and occupy the moral high ground.<\/p>\n
From the tenor and the passion of the several secessionist
\nmovements it is becoming increasingly clear that the inevitable
\nwill soon follow.<\/p>\n
The painful lessons from Timor and the aftermath of the
\nworld's scorn and consternation are still fresh in the memory.
\nThe time for myopic polemics and dogmatism is long past and the
\nmoment for a fresh and rejuvenating introspection draws near.<\/p>\n
The author is a commentator on regional economic and political
\nissues based in Jakarta.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/secession-ris-democracy-dilemma-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}