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.