Asian values haunt Indonesia's future

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).