Compromise sought in pursuit of democracy

Miriam Budiardjo, Professor, Political Science, University of Indonesia, Jakarta

The Sept. 11, 2001 incident has drastically changed the world. The war on terrorism and violence in Afghanistan waged by several Western countries once advocating human rights, has considerably weakened the moral strength that underlies the international campaign to promote human rights.

Although they have resorted to force as a consequence of the destruction of the World Trade Center, which was widely condemned by most nations, one day all eyes will likely be on the International Court of Justice which is now trying cases of war crimes in the Balkans.

If the tribunal were to evaluate acts of violence committed by some super powers today, doubts may be raised as to whether standards now applied to serious violations of human rights will be maintained or whether double standards should be introduced. Diverse interpretations of when an armed intervention can be called a "just war" may emerge, thus justifying otherwise serious breaches of human rights.

One must note here the major issues of first, the "tension" between political rights and economic rights, and second, the concept of human rights which are inseparable from democracy. Both topics have influenced countries in transition, including Indonesia, which are shifting from authoritarian rule to democracy.

The dichotomy between political and economic rights developed during the post-World War II period between Western (First World) countries and Communist (Second World) countries. The West was obsessed by the exercise of traditional rights in political terms (such as the rights to survival, speech) and made light of economic rights (like the rights to decent life, education), because Western states had already eliminated poverty and achieved high levels of education.

Conversely, Second and Third World nations, with their low levels of prosperity, prioritized the fulfillment of economic rights, especially poverty relief.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989 as a nation- state symbolizing communism and representing the Second World, only the First World (now including countries like the Russian Federation and ex-communist East European nations) and the Third World are left.

Three worlds have been reduced to two, often referred to as the West versus the Rest.

The two worlds reached a compromise in the United Nations Conference in Vienna in 1993. Their consensus stated, among other things, that all human rights (political and economic) shall be universal, and be treated on an equal basis and with the same emphasis.

But they acknowledged that differences could arise in relevant countries on the basis of "national, regional characteristics and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds". Nonetheless, dissent has vaguely prevailed. India and China as well as some other countries adopt an inward looking attitude.

In Indonesia, the variance is reflected in the acceptance of two groups. The first group, with its outward looking stance, maintains that all the provisions of international bodies are binding and must be carried out. The implementation of international conventions, laws and customary laws is compulsory. This viewpoint of the West is shared by most human rights activists.

The second group is inward looking and closer to the position of the Rest, which recognizes the need to respect and implement international decisions, because the traditional concept of sovereignty has more or less been undermined by the growing role of the United Nations and economic globalization.

Yet this group is also convinced that in economically weak countries, the focus should be the realization of the right to development in addition to political rights. This is very crucial for the establishment of a viable and effective government, and at the same time a precondition to the founding of a consolidated democratic state.

Unfortunately, there is no single standard definition of democracy. In the West it covers transparent general elections, in which prospective decision-makers periodically contest for power in an atmosphere of respect for civil liberties and protection for minority groups.

Democracy also encompasses such concepts as accountability, competition, participation and human rights protection. Successful democracy is characterized by sustained economic growth, the presence of a large and relatively prosperous middle class, autonomous groups, the rule of law and a tolerant political culture ready for dialog and compromise.

A system which embraces those concepts is frequently called a strong democracy. This characterization is only natural because it stems from a stable Western society where social and economic factors need no longer be considered and are already taken for granted.

The awareness that socio-economic and stability issues cannot just be taken for granted, but constitute an absolute supporting element of democracy, only arose when many countries succeeded in toppling their authoritarian regimes and craved a democratic system of administration.

And as obstacles stood in the way of democratization, political setbacks, social upheavals and chaos tended to follow, thus endangering the existence of the states themselves. Therefore, the concept has emerged that for the growth and consolidation of democracy, its supporting factors must be set up.

Its main pillar, according to several experts, is a sovereign state. They maintain that without a sovereign state there is no democracy. "A sovereign state is a prerequisite for democracy", according to Juan Linz and Alfred Stepan, as stated in their book, Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation. The same view is held by Saafroedin Bahar in Konteks Kenegaraan dari HAM 1945-1991 (The statehood context of human rights, 1945-1991).

One component of a sovereign state is a viable government capable of responding to the challenges it faces. It is absolutely necessary to create an atmosphere in which the administration is able to undertake good governance, i.e. close cooperation between the government apparatus (including the bureaucracy), civil society and economic forces.

In Indonesia, poverty among millions of people, unemployment, internally displaced people, low quality human resources, separatist sentiments, lawlessness and minimal political stability need to be thoroughly resolved because they are not conducive to fostering democracy. The other facts such as the country's vast territory, the profiles of island groups and the large population, the fourth largest in the world, make matters worse.

Government policies may have initially been less favorable to the optimal application of political rights in view of limited financial resources, while the realization that both political and economic rights demand huge funds.

The two interests are competing in their struggle for part of the shrinking economic pie. Such policies will be opposed by many human rights activists, anti-state groups and smaller units desiring a social revolution. But a modus vivendi (feasible compromise) should be sought to ensure the simultaneous pursuit of human rights and a viable state that is sustainable. Public support is vital to achieve this democracy.

The above article appeared earlier in the Kompas daily.