Achieving stability by democracy, not vice versa
Achieving stability by democracy, not vice versa
By Makmur Keliat
JAKARTA (JP): It is an obvious truism that democracy has its
limits. Boundless democracy certainly will turn a nation into a
politically anarchic society. Accordingly, to some extent
democracy is not always in line with the rationale behind the
motive of establishing a state.
In an abstract notion, one of the philosophical reasons
everybody agrees with the existence of a sovereign state is the
avoidance of a lawless society. It is presumed that regulations
enacted by a state will provide people with more security and
legal certainty as opposed to a non-existent state.
Due to this conventional wisdom, there are no international
norms of prohibiting people to unite into a nation despite a
difference in religion, race and ethnic background. It is
believed and conceived that a social contract among different
segments of society exists to underpin the creation of each
country.
However, because one of the motives to establish a country is
to provide for stability and security, the international
community admits that a state is endowed with a right to
temporarily curtail civil liberty and the freedom of expression.
As clearly stipulated by Article 4 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 15 of the
European Convention and Article 27 of the American Convention,
this privilege is executed if national security and stability are
put into jeopardy.
However, it is erroneous to say that such a prerogative gives
a legal mandate to a ruling government to arbitrarily restrict
freedom of expression and civil liberty. The crucial aspect at
this point is the definition of national security and stability.
In developing countries, national stability and security have
been flexibly conceptualized. Through various catch phrases such
as "to avoid economic crisis and accelerate economic
development", "to maintain law and order", or "to protect
national interests", they often limit and proscribe freedom of
expression and civil liberty.
Revoking the publishing license of the weekly magazine Tempo
clearly symbolizes the magic-like words of national stability.
According to internationally accepted human rights norms, the
implementation of the right of derogation, namely the right to
curtail civil liberties and the freedom of expression, has two
additional requirements.
Firstly, it can be executed only if national security is truly
threatened (a de facto requirement), most likely in a situation
of war. Second, the implementation of the right of derogation
should be announced to the international community (a de jure
requirement).
Accordingly, it is politically and legally acceptable if some
continue to lend their support to those still struggling against
the annulment of Tempo. Here, both de facto and de jure
requirements for the government's actions are clearly
unfulfilled.
The revocation can largely be attributed to the Indonesian
government's view of the relations between civil liberty and
national stability as antagonistic.
Irrespective of Indonesian diplomacy, it is difficult to erase
the impression that the revocation has become a zero sum game.
While national stability has become "stronger" because of the
revocation, Indonesian civil liberty has moved in reverse.
In this context, several big questions arise. Can we still
adopt a new concept to see national stability as compatible with
democracy and civil liberty? Or do we have to spend so much
energy countering the international community and their
accusations of human rights violations in Indonesia?
After all, the case for adopting a symbiotic pattern is not
unreasonable. According to an old political axiom, a security
approach is limited in handling social grievances and political
legitimacy cannot be gained by force alone.
It is true that democracy and freedom of expression cannot be
exercised without national stability. It is equally true to say,
however, that national stability can be achieved and maintained
without respect for civil liberty and democracy.
Henceforth, increasing demands for democratization should be
met with ventilation and a dialog mechanism rather than a
security approach.
To put it another way, it is better to achieve national
stability by democracy, and not vice versa. The reason is simple.
Achieving democracy by stability necessitates a condition that
there must be stability before moving into democracy.
By contrast, stability by democracy would prevent people from
considering national stability as a pretext for the survival of
the ruling elite.
Makmur Keliat is a Ph.D degree holder from the School of
International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi,
India and a lecturer of political sciences at Airlangga
University, Surabaya.