Democracy: Worth struggling for

Democracy: Worth struggling for

By Ignas Kleden

JAKARTA (JP): The question of democracy in Indonesia is becoming more complicated because increasingly complex social conditions necessitate more sophistication. Without oversimplifying the issue, there is an urgent need to methodically look at democracy to render the question manageable.

The question of power is fundamental to democracy because democracy deals with governance, which presupposes the formation and the use of power. In turn, the formation and the use of power depends on legitimacy, the worthiness of a political order to be recognized. A state's validity depends on its ability. The more rational the state power, the more legitimate it will be.

At the government level, however, the formation and the use of power relies on checks and balances. The balance of power implies division and distribution, whereas the check on power implies public control of power. The question is more concrete when formulated in negative terms: The less concentrated the power, and the less immune it is to criticism and control, the more democratic its use will be.

Lord Acton's famous phrase, power tends to corrupt, is nothing but a political translation of the very basic anthropological adage that all human beings are fallible. Human fallibility makes control necessary in order to minimize the corruption of power.

The ability to accumulate and wield power is only made reasonable and acceptable when the questions who is entitled to choose and establish the basic aims of power, and who then decides to pursue the basic aims, are answered. At this level, democracy deals with the question of consensus building and decision making.

In a technocratic system, for example, only the opinions of experts count because it is assumed the problems of modern societies are too complex for laymen to deal with. What the public thinks is treated as irrelevant because their opinion would supposedly complicate the matter.

Consensus building and decision making have therefore a double significance. First, it can be safely assumed that not every power holder is able to make good decisions on matters effecting the public. Second, people must be able to participate in the decision making process, not because they are in the best position to make a decision, but because they are most entitled to make decisions which will affect their living conditions. It is a not a question of the right decision, but rather self- determination. It is not a matter of intelligence or expertise, but rather a matter of basic rights.

The logic of democracy in this model is quite clear. Governance and power wielding presuppose some basic aims which justify it. The basic aims, however, need some basic values to justify their validity. Therefore, the third level of the problematic of democracy pertains to democratic values, which become the basis as well as the goal of governance. One basic value is the belief that every human being is created equal. This belief is the source of some inalienable basic rights, such as the right to the pursuit of happiness, freedom from any sort of exploitation, and the right to self-determination.

In philosophical terms, democracy treats every human being as autonomous, independent of the whim and favor of other people. In psychological terms, democracy treats every human being as being mature enough to be responsible for themselves. In sociological terms, democracy assumes that every human being is capable of a meaningful social interaction, the underpin of social integration.

Power is domination, whereas values are hegemony. The relationship between domination and hegemony is characterized by a fundamental asymmetry. No power, even absolute, is free from the need for hegemony to justify, to strengthen and to perpetuate its existence. There is a permanent search for hegemony from the side of domination. This is apparent in the tendency of power holders to create political myths or ideological beliefs. If the political myths and ideological beliefs are not able to justify the political order, they can at least justify the existence and the role of the ruler.

To establish hegemony there is a provisional need for domination. Once hegemony is established, however, the domination becomes irrelevant and superfluous. This relationship is obvious in schools. The enforcement of discipline among children needs support from dominate mentors and educators. Once discipline is established, there is no need for domination anymore. Children who have succeeded in appropriating their values of discipline do not need the control of domination, which if retained, looks ridiculous.

The democratic problem lies in the fact that power holders tend to create and disseminate their own values to justify and perpetuate their power. This is very normal and very human. Parents create myths and stories to perpetuate the obedience and submission of their children. Maturation is the process of children gradually making up their own minds and putting forward their own opinions and views.

In Indonesia, power politics is characterized as practical politics, which is fairly clearly circumscribed by the official regulations. The reduction of the number of political parties, the revocation of political opposition, the implementation of floating mass-policy, and the enforcement of the so-called normalization of campuses are only some of the regulations retarding the maturation f democracy in Indonesia.

The second level of democracy, namely the politics of participation and people's empowerment, has had more room over the last few years. The role of NGOs can never be exaggerated, because they, due to their mobility and flexibility, can get to areas beyond the reach of both the bureaucracy and the political parties.

NGOs are responsible for publicizing social problems like the environment, poverty, sexual harassment, minimum wages and gender inequality. And because NGOs are too small to become a dangerous rival to the government, they should be allowed to become the government's competent partners.

The third level of democracy, namely that of views, values and conceptions, is relatively more open in Indonesia than the other two levels. Some important issues are given official interpretations and then disseminated through bureaucracy to shape the public's view. The interpretation of Pancasila, the doctrine of the national culture, and, on a more concrete level, the interpretation of family-like relationships in politics and economics, are delineated by the government.

However, this is only the case because there are very few alternative interpretations voiced by Indonesian intellectuals and social scientists to challenge those made by the government.

There is a wide intellectual arena in which to establish intellectual and political hegemony by providing basic but substantial political conceptions.

A democracy is created through struggle, success and failure. The cause might be too small for to die for, but is certainly big enough to live for.

The writer is a sociologist with the SPES Foundation Research Center.

Windows: The third level of democracy, namely that of views, values and conceptions, is relatively more open in Indonesia than the other two levels.