Year-end reflection: An urgency for paradigm shift<\/p>\n
Yanuar Nugroho, Director, The Business Watch Indonesia,
\nLecturer, Sahid University at Surakarta, Researcher, Uni Sosial
\nDemokrat Jakarta, yanuar-n@unisosdem.org<\/p>\n
Humanity involves a pilgrimage across space and time. Panta
\nrei, everything is in flux, Heraclitus would say, meaning that
\nsince everything flows and continues to flow, you can never step
\ninto the same river twice. Life indeed is a river of time, a
\nriver in which we have seen many important things over the past
\nyear.<\/p>\n
Much significant progress has been (and will still be)
\nachieved, but we should not forget to face our responsibilities
\nin tackling the problems of our humanity. Stepping into 2003, we
\nare taking another step into the global paradox.<\/p>\n
The Economist magazine recently estimated that global growth
\nin 2003 will be 3.5 percent, compared to 2.5 percent in 2002.
\nStill, in the face of such growth are other statistics; while 3.1
\nmillion people died from AIDS this year, UNAIDS reported that
\nthis year saw 5 million people newly infected with HIV. The rate
\nof infection is rising, not falling. Death from diseases like
\nmalaria or tuberculosis have not been projected. Much progress
\nhas taken place, but the environment and human life are seriously
\naffected and are being degraded. The widening gap between the
\nrich and the poor seems impossible to bridge.<\/p>\n
This is the runaway world, said sociologist Anthony Giddens in
\n1999. We are all entrapped in a huge juggernaut, which runs so
\nfast that no one can stop it. We enjoy such unprecedented
\ncomforts, but we also suffer from unprecedented problems.<\/p>\n
So, this might the right time to reflect back on our lives, at
\nleast from the perspective of social and political economy.<\/p>\n
First of all, this is about our shared life. However, we
\nshould distinguish fact, or description, from idea, or
\nexpectations. Thus we cannot assume that everyone agrees on such
\nnotions.<\/p>\n
Substance is missing when we generalize with words like
\n\"Indonesia\" or \"the public\" because the dynamics of power are not
\ntaken into account. Indeed, it is power that most significantly
\naffects our shared life.<\/p>\n
This brings us to the second point: Centers of power. Power is
\npolycentric rather than monocentric, or emanating from one
\ncenter, given the paradoxical nature of our recent life. It is
\nthus misleading to consider governments as the sole holders of
\npower in society. While it is true that government has the
\nlegitimate state power, there are also other substantial centers
\nof power. As Herry B. Priyono wrote in this newspaper, the
\ncurrent \"three axes\", or three centers, of power are the public
\nagency, the market and the community.<\/p>\n
The Jakarta Governor is, of course, much more powerful than
\nevicted pedicab drivers, marginalized riverbank inhabitants or
\nlocally based non-governmental organizations, but the government
\nof Indonesia can do nothing to prevent Sony or Reebok from
\nrelocating their production plants. Tribal and\/or communal
\nconflicts have complicated the position of the government, while
\nlocal communities also seem to be powerless in the face of
\nruthless industrial expansion.<\/p>\n
Yet, make no mistake. The asymmetrical nature of power itself
\nis neutral, and it does not necessarily lead to an abuse of
\npower. It only becomes a problem when, through its practice and
\nexercise, power adversely affects a society's shared life, for
\nexample, environmental degradation, the widening gap between the
\nrich and the poor, closed and undemocratic governance, etc.<\/p>\n
Thus we come to the third point in our reflection: The very
\ncentered idea of democracy. This idea draws on the premise that
\npower is involved through the whole process of our shared life.
\nWithout this, democracy would lose its raison d'etre, for it is
\nsubstantially an idea or a movement to make any socially
\nconsequential exercise of power accountable (Plato, 428-354 BC).
\nAnd towards what aims must democracy strive? Actually, democracy
\nhas no formulated, final aims.<\/p>\n
Thus, it is a cliche to say that democracy only targets state
\npower, since the forms and socially consequential exercise of
\npower is constantly shifting throughout history: power could lie
\nwith tribal leaders, kings, sultans, governments, military
\nforces, business, etc. Blindly targeting democracy towards a
\ncertain form of power, e.g. state power, even while the power
\nconstellation is always changing, would therefore amount to a
\nkind of political fundamentalism which gets us nowhere.<\/p>\n
Today, the biggest irony is that the power of capital has
\nescaped from the criteria of public accountability, and the irony
\nseems to be rooted in the conception of the origins of power.<\/p>\n
This clearly comes from the standard distinction of the
\n\"public\" character of state power and the \"private\" nature of
\ncapital, or business, power. State power is rooted in its control
\nover the state of, say, Indonesia, which of course is not private
\nproperty.<\/p>\n
In contrast, business power is rooted in its ownership of
\ncapital, which is unquestionably private property. In the
\nlibertarian conception, the democratic criteria applies towards
\nstate power, but not towards business power. This might be the
\ndeepest root of our powerlessness when faced by capital power
\nwhich can fly anywhere and intervene in the economic process of
\nany country without any entry-exit regulation, as Priyono wrote.<\/p>\n
The key problem of such a paradigm is the sundering of
\nownership\/property from power -- we know clearly that they cannot
\nbe separated. There is no property which does not involve power,
\nand vice versa. Any socially consequential exercise of power
\nbased on private property should not escape the democratic
\ncriteria. The use and abuse of private property in the pulp
\nindustry, for example, has a deep implication on the environment
\nand on ecological governance.<\/p>\n
We can easily look at other examples of power related to
\n\"privately owned\" capital -- the workplace, employment and
\nunemployment, the deposit pool, consumerism, credit provision,
\nstate income for social welfare, provision of public needs,
\nincome and living standards for farmers and workers, etc.<\/p>\n
Perhaps we should pay more attention to what is most
\ninfluential nowadays -- not only the dictatorship of the state,
\nbut rather the oligarchic domination of capital, or even the
\ncombination of both.<\/p>\n
So, when reading something like, \"the war is expected to push
\nthe barrel price (of oil) temporarily above US$40 during 2003\"
\nfrom at least $20 in 2002 (The Economist, \"The World in 2003\"
\nedition) we should realize that the way we see the \"war against
\nterrorism\" is far behind the ontology, or the reality, of the
\n\"economics of war\".<\/p>\n
\"Christmas does not come from stores and presents,\" the Grinch
\nmovie tells us; yet reality shows the opposite.<\/p>\n
And it is time for us to reinvent our history.<\/p>\n
History is the outcome of the network of ideas, actions and
\nmovements regarding our own lives. It is not as simple as Harry
\nPotter using his magic wand to change anything magically and
\ninstantly.<\/p>\n
We need to change our paradigm, though it will not be easy.<\/p>\n
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/year-end-reflection-an-urgency-for-paradigm-shift-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }