Asian values haunt Indonesia's future

By Christopher Lingle

HONG KONG (JP): There was at least one benefit from the recent crises afflicting East Asia. The slump in the region's economies seems to have dampened the stridency of the proponents of Asian values. Thankfully, Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew and Malaysia's Mahathir Mohamad have been reluctant to make such rash claims about the wisdom of their iron-willed rule.

Unfortunately, Minister of Defense and Security, Gen. Wiranto, has resurrected the notion that his citizens will be best served by a regionally-specific form of democracy. Yes, it appears that the specter of "Asian democracy" is back to haunt us. And to make matters worse, Wiranto was declared as the vice presidential running mate in the forthcoming presidential elections.

In a speech earlier this year, Wiranto warned against the introduction of liberalism into Indonesian society. His comments reveal a considerable naivete about the nature of liberal politics. Perhaps he can be forgiven for his mistakes given that his job does not require him to have a deep knowledge of political philosophy. While serving as a military officer and ministerial bureaucrat, he should refrain from using his high office to speak on matters outside his competence. Or at least he should wait until he leaves his post to join the civilian community as an active politician.

Doubtless he meant to be reassuring when he asserted that he and other military officials do not wish to see a continuation of authoritarian rule. Put into perspective of Indonesia's recent history, his remark is chimerical. Developing as it did with the context of a one-party state, the military provided the muscle behind the nominally civilian Soeharto's "New Order" regime.

In the first instance, it is fatuous to claim a homogeneous set of values exist within a distinctively diverse and multiethnic country such as Indonesia. Open multiparty democracy serves as the best means for adjudicating differences that arise from different moral and cultural values. Imposing rigidified values and cultural norms is a recipe for disaster because it will undermine national unity.

In all events, his reasons for rejecting liberalism are like that those offered by apologists for despotism elsewhere. Liberalism is less threatening to national unity than the residual effects of corruption initiated and promoted by the people who appointed him and the ruling party he served.

In his view the threat is that when given freedom, citizens will abandon their responsibilities. Yet liberalism attempts to ensure that all individuals have equal rights and freedoms before the law. As such, liberalism seeks to restrain the sorts of abuses by individuals who rely upon corruptible leaders to use the instruments of governments to perpetuate imbalances of power. Excesses of individuals do not arise from the promotion of rights and freedoms that are the basis of liberalism.

Assertions that local culture and existing values make his countrymen unfit for liberal democracy are perversely racist. Liberal democracy is being increasingly practiced in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand. None them are suffering from a lack of national unity. Yet, these Asian countries also have their own distinctive cultures and values, but their citizens have proved themselves to be able to exercise self-rule. After all, self- determination was what the fight against Dutch colonial rule and Japanese occupation was all about.

In effect, denying Indonesians the right to secure their own freedoms is to suggest that they are incapable of governing themselves. However, the reverse is more obvious.

Its leaders have proven themselves to be incapable of providing leadership and unworthy of their offices. Indonesia is blessed with citizens of strong character but damned in having leaders whose morals are bankrupt. Defects arising from any future democratic developments can be traced to decades of misrule and abuse of power. Poor leadership has embedded a rapacious sense of corruption and venality that had origins in the family of the head of state and trickled down to the village headman.

Experiments with Asian democracy elsewhere indicate the need for strong political and judicial institutions to protect citizens from the excesses of other individuals, groups or government. For democracy to serve the people, it is better not to be based upon specific personalities or a single-party monopoly. Democracy is best served when there is an independent judiciary that oversees the implementation of impartial laws that provide equal protections to each and all. Such an approach to governance is crucial in a multi-cultural country such as Indonesia.

One of the problematic aspects of Asian democracy is its discomfort with the spontaneous emergence of civil society. The institutions of civil society are widely recognized as an important mechanism for a healthy democracy. In general, it is comprised of voluntary associations of citizens who act to moderate governments and mitigate the abuse of power exercised by politicians and bureaucrats or assertive individuals or other groups. These institutions are basic elements of liberal politics. Is Wiranto opposed to civil society?

It should be clear even to a political novice that tolerance and flexibility should guide political governance in Indonesia. In its other incarnations, Asian democracy has encouraged conservatism or repression or both. Indonesians deserve an escape from the past.

Many observers anticipate that Wiranto may have an active role in the coming government, possibly holding the office of Vice President. Yet his views on democracy do not reassure those who have high hopes for the success of Indonesia's brave and commendable move towards multiparty democracy.

The writer is an independent corporate consultant and adjunct scholar of the Centre for Independent Studies in Sydney who authored The Rise and Decline of the Asian Century (Hong Kong: Asia 2000, 1998).