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.