Compromise sought in pursuit of democracy

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.