Civil society in the Indonesian context

Civil society in the Indonesian context

The following article is an excerpt from a paper presented by
Michael Leifer at the seminar on Indonesia and the world at the
beginning of the 21st century jointly organized by The Jakarta
Post and the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in
Jakarta on Oct. 17 in connection with the 50th anniversary of
Indonesia's independence. This is the first of two articles.

JAKARTA (JP): It should be understood from the outset, that
the concept of a civil society is one that exists at the level of
political ideals and not as a perfect working model of political
practice which is suitable for application to all societies at
all times.

Indeed, in practice, many states which may be represented as
exemplars of a civil society tend only to approximate to the
ideal rather than fulfill all of its conditions. The concept of a
civil society is a powerful symbol, however. It stands for human
freedom and dignity and the right not to be subject to political
oppression which is a universal human aspiration; not one
confined to a particular continent or culture.

Historically, civil society is a concept that originated in a
European context concurrent with the emergence of the notion of
modernity involving the application of reason in the interest of
human improvement and progress.

The initial revelation spawned by the Enlightenment and
stimulated by the intoxicating experience of the French
Revolution was followed, however, by a salutary experience of
terror, dictatorship and empire which was responsible in part for
the genesis of the Marxist alternative which has only recently
been totally discredited long after its own experience of terror,
dictatorship and empire.

Indeed, it is in the context of the failure of Marxism to
provide for human progress and dignity that the notion of a civil
society has revived and has reappeared in the political lexicon
attracting great interest in Eastern Europe in particular and in
other parts of the world as well as generating debate over
whether it is appropriate and even arrogant for Western political
traditions to be translated to and applied in countries which
have different political cultures.

Whatever the reservations of context, civil society is about
pluralism and the freedom to associate and choose in political
terms and choice is the essence of personal and political
freedom. The most succinct definition of civil society which I
have come across may be found in a recent book by Professor
Ernest Gellner entitled The Conditions of Liberty. He defines a
civil society as one that contains that set of diverse non-
governmental institutions which is strong enough to
counterbalance the state and, while not preventing the state from
fulfilling its role of keeper of the peace and arbitrator between
major interests can nevertheless prevent it from dominating and
atomizing the rest of society.

The question may be legitimately asked: What has all this got
to do with Indonesia, especially as its people are celebrating
the 50th anniversary of the proclamation of their independence
which they achieved through their own revolutionary struggle. Why
should a concept which is of European provenance, and which
appeared first in the title of a book written by an eighteenth
century Scottish philosopher called Adam Ferguson, have any
bearing on how Indonesians order their political system,
especially when they have enjoyed over a quarter of a century of
stability which has been responsible for remarkable economic
achievement and an enhanced international standing.

The answer to the question lies partly in that very economic
achievement which has been responsible for generating an
attendant social change, including the emergence of a small but
growing educated and sophisticated urban middle class who want to
have greater account taken of their interests by a government
which is not used to the kind of constant application of checks
and balances to be found in Western political practice. In other
words, as one commentator has noted: `economic consumers now seek
to become political consumers'. Evidence of demands from this
relatively new and growing constituency may be found in the
phenomenon of the non-governmental organization, or NGO, which
has been replicated in other parts of industrializing East Asia.

It is important to take full cognizance of that NGO phenomenon
which focuses on issues which may not necessarily seem to be of
political significance but which almost invariably touch on
matters of conflict of interests which is the stuff of politics.
Its advent may have been inspired by Western example but its
appearance, expansion and activism over a wide range of social
and politically-related issues has been a product of local
circumstances and initiative, especially the fundamental social
changes which have been induced by rapid and successful economic
development. It has been engendered also by the negative aspects
of rapid economic development affecting the countryside as well
as the towns. To that extent, political consumerism has spread
beyond the middle-class.

It is of interest to note that a recent study of the nature
and activities of NGOs in the Asia-Pacific and published in the
region is entitled Emerging Civil Society. It should be noted
also that in the case of Indonesia, the number of NGOs has been
estimated to up to 6,000. The NGO phenomenon, which encompasses a
diversity of interests, should be understood as a symptom of a
process of change as much as an agent for change. Moreover, the
clock cannot be put back on the kind of social change generated
by such successful economic development of the kind which has
been an important part of the Indonesian experience.

The goal of sustained economic development continues to be
upheld by Indonesia's government in the national interest. And to
the extent that its momentum is maintained, the effect will
almost certainly reinforce the process of social change which I
have identified with attendant political consequences. In that
respect, Indonesia is going to have to face up to the political
outcome of its own economic success which is an example of the
old adage that for every solution there is a problem. In such
changing circumstances, old established political formulae may
not be enough to sustain the stability which is essential to
underpin continuing improvement in social welfare which is an
important basis of the legitimacy of government.

The second answer to the question also lies in Indonesia's
experience and in this respect there is an interesting comparison
with Europe, even though there are important cultural differences
which need to be noted and respected. In addressing the concept
of civil society, we are really talking about the degree of
political choice and democratization suitable for different and
diverse countries. In the case of the West, political tradition
has placed great emphasis on the rights of the individual in the
context of successful historical challenges to royal absolutism
and dynastic succession once justified in terms of a divine right
to rule. The argument for democracy as it emerged, for example,
during what is known as the English Revolution in the seventeenth
century when the Republican Roundheads triumphed over the
Royalist Cavaliers, was based on the assumption that all men and
women were created equal in the sight of God. To that extent,
they were entitled to a say in decisions which affected their
everyday lives and those of their families. The legitimacy or
moral authority of governments which are part of that tradition
has its origins in that assumption.

There have been strong challenges of late to that
interpretation of democracy on the grounds that in East Asia the
long-standing tradition is quite different. It is said to be one
of respect for authority with the individual under a powerful
obligation to the family, group or society by contrast with the
West where the individual tends to be the centerpiece of a
democracy which has been designed to disempower government. What
is at issue here is the appropriate balance between the rights of
the individual and those of the state. In the case of Indonesia,
the challenge of creating a civil society relates to shaping the
appropriate balance between the rights of the individual and
those of the state in the context of social change without
prejudicing the understandable requirement to uphold political
order.

That said, respect for the rights of individuals may not be so
alien to Indonesian political tradition as might be inferred from
the argument about the different emphasis placed on such rights
in so-called East Asia compared to the European tradition.
Indeed, a basis for such rights may be identified in a parallel
doctrine to that of civil society; namely the state philosophy of
Pancasila which pivots on the obligation of every Indonesian to
believe in a single deity.

In the case of the single supreme God in which Indonesians are
enjoined to believe, particularly if they are Moslems or
Christians, both of these religions are based on the notion of a
community of equal believers. All such equal believers are said
to find the same quality of grace in God's sight and deserve
corresponding respect from government. Pancasila also imposes
important obligations on the state beyond the provision of
respect for religious pluralism, including social justice and
democracy which share corresponding assumptions. It is possible
to argue, therefore, that Indonesia in its state philosophy
shares the same underlying assumption of the English democratic
revolution which was based on the belief that men and women are
created equal in the sight of God. Indeed, Pancasila may be
described as the Indonesian expression of the concept of a civil
society.

To that extent, it is possible to suggest that the concept of
a civil society is not totally alien to Indonesian values and
that is not a doctrine which is being imposed from outside
arising from the nature of the end of the Cold War. It is, of
course, well understood that the attempt by the Clinton
Administration to apply a new doctrine of enlarging market
democracies in place of the defunct one of the containment of
international communism was received with some skepticism in
South-East Asia as a devious attempt to impose conditions for aid
and trade. However, the content and ideals of Pancasila are not
the constructs of an alien Western mind. They constitute
standards which relate to human dignity which are entrenched in
the Indonesian constitution and Indonesian governments will be
judged in Indonesia by the extent to which they are upheld.