Democracy, however imperfect, is on a roll in Indonesia
Democracy, however imperfect, is on a roll in Indonesia
W. Scott Thompson, Gianyar, Bali
One hears so much what is wrong about the "imperfect" state of
democracy in the Indonesian archipelago, during this election
period, that perhaps it is time to hear -- from the view of a
visiting "European" -- what's right about it.
The point of democracy is to provide for the rotation of
leadership through clean elections; to achieve the least
imperfect legislation for the greater good of all (without
punishment for those who lose); and through the least imperfect
institutions possible, the sustaining of civil order within which
the human spirit can flourish.
Let us also consider what democracy probably does not involve
or require. As one who has spent a long career studying
developing countries, including their attempts to implant
democratic institutions, I have read much nonsense about what the
absolute standards are for successful democracy. These include
various but usually high thresholds of economic and educational
attainment.
It is true that the longest success stories of democracy
worldwide are in western industrial (and rich) societies. They
were not always rich. The yeomen of Jeffersonian fame, in the
19th century, were poor and not very well educated farmers.
But consider India -- and indeed its recent elections. For
over fifty of the years since independence democracy has
flourished. Recent events are nothing less than astonishing.
Within a day of voting the stunning results were in, the
powerful and economically successful government was turned out
and had gracefully conceded.
Within days the prime-minister designate had turned down the
honor. "What are we in this for?".
True, the emergence of Korea and Taiwan as the two most stable
democracies of East and Southeast Asia gives credence to the
notion that democracy is best built on strong economic
foundations. But their experience hardly proves the point.
No one is disagreeing that it is easier to build democracy
amid strong economic growth. But the evidence is very powerful
that democracy is the best guarantor of further economic growth.
This is not to say that a strong authoritarian leadership
cannot deliver economic growth -- witness Soeharto. But a huge
and painful chunk of that expansion was lost in the 1998-2000
crisis--,but the loss would not have been so huge in the presence
of adequate democratic institutions.
The only major country of the region that did not spill its
guts in the crisis was the then most democratic one -- Ramos's
Philippines. Over time, democracy correlates with economic
success.
As far as educational institutions are concerned, there has
never been solid evidence that uneducated people can't figure out
where their interests lay.
At early stages of democratic development, this may take the
form of ethnic or group voting, through a clan leader or through
mass vote buying. But as economic and political interests become
more plural, people's votes follow in like manner.
Now for Indonesia. The legislative elections in April were
hard fought and had among the most complicated electoral
instructions ever seen. But no one has complained that the
results fail to show preference and the results of good
organization.
In fact, though democratic theory usually doesn't place
emphasis on party building (and the American founders were
supremely suspicious of "faction"), what looks to this observer
as the best evidence of democratic maturization in Indonesia is
the extent to which real interests are being filtered through and
into party organization.
Golkar party has extraordinarily skillfully converted
Soeharto's authoritarian state-serving machine into a well-rooted
and geographically dispersed true party.
There are lots of parties, but there is a tendency toward
consolidation, toward shakeout. It is not fanciful to see
Indonesia moving toward a three or four-party nation, with
shifting coalitions as interests and events evolve. This would be
not unlike the French model, which despite interruptions as in
1958 has not done badly since the war at accommodating and
dealing with the powerful forces within the republic.
Indonesia is said to be one of the most corrupt countries, and
everyone has his own evidence thereof. But oddly enough, these
elections seem to be relatively clean by anybody's standards.
As a college student in the 1960s I had personal knowledge of
bags of cash going in to Illinois to ensure the election of John
F. Kennedy.
There are, alas, plenty of corroborative and additional
stories since. Money flows during election times -- elections
breathe with money. Politicians suddenly build roads for their
constituents as well they should.
Young men are hired to demonstrate, but that wouldn't have
much effect if the party in whose name they shout slogans didn't
have resonance separate from the payroll.
No one can explain in financial terms the phenomenon of
Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono's dominating emergence. No one has
accused Wiranto of corruption. And the electoral watchdogs have
not hesitated to blow the whistle -- including at the ruling
government, when it has allegedly used the instruments of state
power for its own political advantage. President Megawati
Soekarnoputri deserves credit for that.
Can these elections improve governance and stability -- to go
back to our 2nd and 3rd function of democracy? Time will tell,
but the elections so far augur well.
We read much about the TNI's (military's) continued large
role in the polity, its independent economic base and its
powerful reach. But compare it with a decade ago! And one
suspects that the two generals running for high office have done
well in accordance with the perception that while knowing how to
effect and sustain stability, they will not be at the beck and
call of the men in blue.
It simply isn't realistic to expect the TNI instantly to fade
from a political scene it long dominated, especially while there
remain strong regional and domestic threats to civil order.
But precisely as elections show a popular will and a nation-
wide majority and purpose, my guess is that the military will
continue to blend in to the background, as the guarantor of order
they are expected to be in all countries. My own bet is that
democracy in Indonesia may be on a roll.
Dr. W. Scott Thompson, D. Phil. is Adjunct Professor of
International Politics, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy,
Tufts University, Medford, MA. The views expressed are personal.