Democratic process always slow in any country

Democratic process always slow in any country

A number of politically-charged events occurring these days
have left the public wondering: Has there been a rift among the
political elite? And what about the appearances of covert notes
with racial overtone? Political scientist Amir Santoso grabs
these questions.

JAKARTA (JP): Pamphlets were reported to have been circulating
last week among members of the Chinese community, warning them to
expect anti-Chinese demonstrations. As a consequence fear
prevailed among the Chinese and the incident was reported in
places as far as Hong Kong.

As it turned out, it was a false alarm. Up to this day no
activity of this kind whatsoever has occurred. The question which
the incident provokes, however, is: Who circulated the leaflets,
and why?

Lately, the intra-elite conflict in this country has become
more apparent. Although the attempt was aborted, there were
public figures who sponsored and supported the establishment of
ICKI (Indonesian Association of Nationalist Intellectuals) to
counter the already existing ICMI (Indonesian Association of
Moslem Intellectuals). Then there were arguments about the cost
of German warships. One cabinet minister vowed he had no
intention of taking any financial advantage from the purchase of
the warships. Another said the cost of the ships was too high.

This kind of intra-elite rivalry is not actually new. Politics
in Indonesia is a contest between political streams. In 1952 NU
(Nahdlatul Ulama) broke away from the Moslem party Masjumi
because of a conflict between the traditionalist NU and the
modernist Moslems in the Masjumi. Up to 1965, before it was
disbanded, the Communist Party could never get along with either
the Socialist Party nor with Murba, one of the streamings in the
socialist camp at that time. The nationalists also came in
various groups.

Thus, the rivalry between the Moslems and nationalists which
is now occurring constitutes a repetition of the old pattern. The
difference is that the prevalence of press freedom causes the
conflict to become more transparent.

Of course there are also other interest groups who are taking
part in the contest for a slice of the political pie pending the
1997 elections. These could be categorized in the pro- and anti-
government groups.

The anti-government advocates hold the objective of replacing
Soeharto on the reasoning that he holds responsibility for the
impairment of human rights and democracy. They also blame the
government for the gap which they perceive between the rich and
the poor.

The final issue is one that can arouse the public emotions the
easiest because it concerns realities that are immediately
perceptible.

If the Chinese minority becomes an object of anti-government
activities the reason is actually not that they are Chinese, but
rather because they are a group of wealthy people living amidst a
majority of people who are poor and are treated with a certain
degree of injustice by the bureaucracy.

The anti-Chinese activities are intended to cause distress
among Chinese businessmen and foreign investors. If a
considerable amount of capital, owned by the Chinese, flees
overseas and foreign investors cease their investments in
Indonesia, monetary instability would result and the regime would
be easier to replace.

This scenario and other plans to upset stability are of course
known to the government apparatus. It can therefore be understood
that the government has again put checks on the freedom that has
been granted. Quite possibly the government will take tougher
action against demonstrations and other activities that are
organized in the name of democracy. Possibly the same will hold
true with regard to the mass media.

Those who agree with the government's attitude are of the view
that some of the mass media and the students have tended to
misuse the freedom that has been given by the government to
undermine the government's authority and provoke the masses into
opposing the government.

I personally have long since warned student activists against
this kind of possibility. I have told them that the government
will not tolerate demonstrations that could upset stability and
security in our society. The political cost that would have to be
paid would be too high.

I told them that if they persisted the possibility could not
be overlooked that some of the freedoms that have been granted in
stages would be retracted. If this should happen, the
democratization process would suffer a setback and they would be
among the losers.

For that reason it is necessary that all parties involved
exercise restraint and act maturely. I would wish that the
government authorities could display a greater understanding
towards the demands of demonstrators.

On the other hand I would also like to appeal for restraint on
the part of the public so that people will not let themselves be
swept by their emotions and be made to drift into currents that
are caused by interest groups with political interests of their
own.

Democracy is not only a problem of how to express our demands
but also of how to express them in an orderly manner. The
democratic process, anywhere, is always slow -- slower than a
radical authoritarian one. Democrats, therefore, are usually
possessed of a greater sense of patience and maturity than those
who are authoritarian in character.

The prevalence of peace, order and stability thus depend on
the government's ability to govern properly, and on the
willingness of the people to transmit their aspirations in an
orderly manner.

The writer is professor of political science at the University
of Indonesia.