The debate on democratization<\/p>\n
Eric Hiariej, Yogyakarta<\/p>\n
The fall of Soeharto has been followed by debate on the future
\nof democratization in Indonesia. Many Indonesians believe that
\nSoeharto's fall has created chances for the establishment of
\ndemocratic institutions. Two factors lie behind this optimistic
\nview.<\/p>\n
First, it is argued that the lack of democratic rules and
\nnorms originates in the superiority of the executive branch (that
\nis, President Soeharto). His fall will, consequently, enable the
\nformation of basic democratic procedures such as the separation
\nof powers and the check-and-balance mechanism.<\/p>\n
In turn, developing these procedures requires further
\npolitical reform in areas such as the party system and the
\nelectoral system.<\/p>\n
Second, the financial crisis has forced the new government to
\npursue market reform. At the center of this reform is the
\nformation of good governance that is compatible with the
\noperation of a market economy. Good governance presupposes
\nbureaucratic transparency and accountability and the recognition
\nof the rule of law that lies at the heart of democratic norms and
\nvalues.<\/p>\n
In arguing along these lines, this view defines democracy as a
\npolitical method for choosing political leadership in which the
\npeople are given a chance to elect their choice of the candidates
\nwho are competing for their votes. Although between elections,
\ndecisions are mainly made by politicians, the people have a
\nchance to replace their officials in the next election.<\/p>\n
In this sense, democratization implies the formation of
\nspecific rules and institution that are compatible with the
\npolitical method for selecting political leaders. This includes
\nregular elections, secret ballots, universal suffrage and
\npartisan competition as well as legislative sovereignty,
\nexecutive accountability and judicial review.<\/p>\n
Democratization refers to the implementation of these rules
\nand procedures in undemocratic institutions and for individuals
\nand groups that were previously governed under undemocratic
\nnorms. This procedural democracy also emphasizes the
\nresponsiveness of the government to the preferences of its
\npeople.<\/p>\n
The optimistic view tends also to believe that the neo-liberal
\northodoxies inherent in the economic reform adopted by the new
\ngovernment are compatible with the formation of democratic
\nprocedures. This belief is rooted in the argument that only a
\ncapitalist system can provide necessary condition for civil
\nliberties and political rights.<\/p>\n
It is assumed that freedom is the ultimate end of humankind
\nand individuals are the only social and political entity. The
\nbasic problem of modern society is how to coordinate social
\nactivities without harming individual freedom. It seems that a
\nfree-market system is the only satisfactory mechanism for
\ndetermining collective decision-making on an individual basis.<\/p>\n
This mechanism can ensure the coordination of the decisions
\nwithout applying absolute authority in which everyone is allowed
\nto pursue their private ends with the resources at their
\ndisposal. However, the free market can only function as long as
\nlaw and order are maintained to prevent physical coercion of one
\nindividual by another and to prevent the practice of monopoly
\nthat inhibits individual freedom. It is in this context that the
\nmarket promotes political freedom.<\/p>\n
First, the market mechanism that assumes voluntary cooperation
\non an individual basis requires the absence of coercion of people
\nby their fellow humans, a majority or government. In turn, the
\nabsence of coercion requires the elimination of concentration of
\npower and the distribution of political authority.<\/p>\n
Second, the market mechanism minimizes government
\nparticipation in economic and social activities. It is assumed
\nthat government intervention tends to be harmful to individual
\nfreedom because it enforces substantial conformity and tends to
\nincrease chances for power concentration. By removing social and
\neconomic activities from the control of the government, the free-
\nmarket system eliminates the sources of coercive power and
\nconcentration of power as well as enabling non-political power to
\ncheck political authority.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, Soeharto's power was based on political
\nsupport, at least from the ruling coalition. His fall was not
\nfollowed by the collapse of his power base. In fact, his former
\nallies secured various strategic positions in the new government,
\nwhile his business associates remain the most important factor
\nfor the recovery of Indonesian economy. More importantly,
\nSoeharto and his cronies are not the only element of the New
\nOrder establishment.<\/p>\n
The rise of this regime was supported by a wide range of
\nsocial classes, especially the upper and middle class in urban as
\nwell as rural areas, at the expense of the continuing repression
\nof workers and farmers. Soeharto's resignation does not
\nautomatically alter this balance of class powers. Instead, the
\nlower class position continues to be further marginalised as
\neconomic reform based on neo-liberal orthodoxies tends to benefit
\nthe rich.<\/p>\n
In so doing, democratization as a matter of the power
\nstruggles of social groups and classes that have been excluded
\nfrom the decision-making process. In the past, this struggle was
\nmarked by the prominence of the unprivileged classes in fighting
\nfor political inclusion, while the classes that benefited the
\nmost from authoritarianism resisted democratization.<\/p>\n
Hence, the future of democracy is shaped by the balance of
\npowers between the dominant and subordinate classes over the
\nright to govern. Democracy in the sense of political inclusion
\ncan hardly be achieved under social inequality.<\/p>\n
This unequal distribution of resources will prevent the
\npeople from possessing equal political rights, as those who have
\nlower incomes and less education tend to have limited power. As
\nsocial inequality embedded in class divisions is created by
\ncapitalist system, political inclusion requires structural
\ntransformation to alter the existing class structure.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, the capitalist system tends to be in tension with
\npolitical inclusion because it is based on, and continues to
\nproduce, social inequality. To begin with, inequality in the
\ncapitalist system originates in class division.<\/p>\n
The class that is able to control the means of production
\nforms the ruling class both economically and politically. Its
\nrelationship with the productive class that constitutes the
\nsubordinate class is exploitative and conflictual. In turn, the
\ncapitalist system relies on this class division and social
\ninequality to produce economic growth.<\/p>\n
It is argued that economic growth requires high rates of
\ninvestment. Investment depends on the level of savings that is
\nshaped by the level of income. In this sense, the unequal
\ndistribution of resources is compatible with economic growth
\nbecause those who have much more income will have a large
\nproportion of their income for saving.<\/p>\n
In conclusion, many Indonesians believe that Soeharto's
\nresignation has brought a bright future for democracy in
\nIndonesia. However, if they put issues such as the balance of
\nclass power and social justice in to the consideration, the
\nprospect of democratization is not so promising.<\/p>\n
The author teaches at Gadjah Mada University's Faculty of
\nSocial and Political Science. He can be reached at
\nhiariej@ugm.ac.id<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/the-debate-on-democratization-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}