Complacency: Indonesia's democratic deficit

Complacency: Indonesia's democratic deficit

Adam Tyson, Toronto

As the Republic of Indonesia prepares for its first direct
presidential elections since independence was achieved, many
observers are putting the electoral system and the various
candidates firmly under the microscope.

Under the watchful eye of domestic reformers and international
monitors, electoral reform is seen as one of the successes of the
reformasi era, just as the new press freedoms are seen as a
victory for pro-democracy advocates and freedoms of association a
victory for civil society.

Despite the obvious obstacles to political reform in Indonesia
(such as conflict, corruption, and insecurity), there is much
hope that the democratic momentum that has been building now for
six years will culminate in the consolidation of the political
transition that followed the collapse of Soeharto's New Order
regime.

There are two orthodox ways in which to consider the dynamics
of political change in any country. There is the top-down
approach (or the structural approach) that in brief emphasizes
the role of elites in politics, institutional and systemic
reform, the evolution of law and constitutionalism, and the
process of elections.

On the other hand, there is the grassroots approach that
emphasizes the role of civil society networks, popular momentum,
education, empowerment, mobilization, representation, and
political awareness. The latter is more difficult to study in a
comprehensive way as it remains elusive and volatile, often
subjected to whims, deception and manipulation.

Compared to studying the changes that occur in the state
bureaucracy, the civil service, the structures of state power,
leadership, or the branches of government, taking a grassroots
approach poses many empirical problems and conceptual
difficulties.

Nevertheless, the success or failure of Indonesia's political
transition will depend on a comprehensive understanding of both
approaches, and given the immense attention being paid to the
structural changes that are occurring at present, we should focus
instead on the grassroots approach.

The current media hype and fanfare surrounding the 2004
legislative and presidential elections comes as little surprise
given the precedent it might set for the future of Indonesia.

There is a vibrant student movement that plays a vital role in
the national struggle for political liberation from the vices of
authoritarianism.

One finds a wonderful sense of purpose and unity in the
discourses about political reform and political renewal on
Javanese campuses in Jakarta, Bandung and Yogyakarta, for
example.

Likewise there has been a proliferation of NGO's (both
domestic and international) that has helped bring financial aid
and political representation to those who are marginalized or
vulnerable. These developments are a testament to the resilience
of the pro-democracy movement in Indonesia, not least because
there is an equally powerful and well-organized resistance to
political reform and democratization.

Some observers suggest that political awareness is low,
participation is limited, interest in political affairs is
circumscribed, and attitudes towards authority tend towards
obedience with little willingness for confrontation.

Proponents of this view cite examples such as unwillingness to
engage in controversial political debates, complicity towards and
tolerance of corruption, and inherited traditions of obedience
towards authority.

Immediately following the transition in 1998 there was a
genuine opportunity to engage in a campaign at the grassroots
level to educate and facilitate an understanding of democracy.
Many believe that this opportunity was lost.

As a result of the lack of substantive change since the fall
of Soeharto, it is held that disillusionment has spread
throughout the public at alarming rates.

Instead of exercising discipline and contributing to the
reform process, it is held that many people are abusing the
freedoms that have been accorded to them, perhaps as a response
to the decades of repressive conditions during the New Order and
recent deficits in the democratic system.

When the euphoria of democracy swept through Indonesia there
were many high expectations, but when these expectations were not
met and conditions did not improve, disillusionment with the
democratic government grew.

Whatever the causal factors may be, there is a situation at
present that is seriously hindering the pro-democracy movement.
People have not yet fully grasped what it means to be a citizen
in a democratic country, and what rights, freedoms and
responsibilities this democratic citizenship affords the
individual.

There is a general reluctance to demand good governance from
the leaders of the Republic of Indonesia, just as there is a
tendency to tolerate the maladministration of government and the
misuse of public funds, services, and utilities.

Although it is assumed at a grassroots level that government
"by the people, for the people" is supposed to bring positive
societal changes, it is still important for the public to realize
that democratic principles must go beyond the political lingo or
rhetoric of the government.

Those who hold office or wear a badge, in whatever capacity,
so long as it represents state authority, must be held publicly
accountable for their actions. The government of Indonesia must
encourage the participation of the general public, must seek to
broaden the representation of divergent groups in society, and
must accept that transparency is a key component in securing the
trust of the public.

The legitimacy of state power is always contingent on public
satisfaction and support, and the government's ability to perform
its responsibilities. Within the context of the upcoming
presidential elections, there is a new opportunity to engage the
public in politics and promote grassroots education and
participation.

Two questions should be at the forefront of the current
political debate surrounding the 2004 elections and the potential
for change that it brings.

Firstly, will the people of Indonesia generate the courage or
capacity to realize their democratic citizenship and all the
rights and freedoms it guarantees?

Secondly, will the newly elected president of Indonesia seek
to legitimize his or her mandate by breaking the trend of empty
political promises and work to forge a lasting relationship
between the government and the grassroots of society?

The writer, formerly a visiting researcher at Parahyangan
Catholic University, Bandung, is now a PhD candidate at Leeds
University, England.