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.