Economic growth the linchpin to hold RI together

Economic growth the linchpin to hold RI together

The following is an excerpt from an interview with Samuel P.
Huntington, a prominent sociopolitical theorist from Harvard
University. He was the key speaker in a May 24 conference on the
federal system of government in Jakarta hosted by Strategic
Intelligence, a Jakarta-based research institute. The professor,
who is best known for his book Clash of Civilizations and the
Remaking of World Order (1996), talked to The Jakarta Post and
Tempo one day before the conference.

Question: In you paper for the conference you say that as
state sovereignty and authority are withering, there is nothing
to fill the vacuum and that chaos is likely to occur ...

Huntington: I said there will be chaos at the global level
because of multiplication of different types of entities
participating in global politics.

We will have states, international organizations,
transnational organizations, networks of groups and so forth and
this will create a certain degree of chaos, and it will be
necessary to handle that chaos in a way that it won't become
violent chaos.

What kind of violence do you foresee?

You can have violence at various levels, and the probability
of major wars between states is not as relatively low. It could
happen. In my remarks tomorrow I will say that the most dangerous
potential war would be one between the United States and China,
which is not likely to happen, but it could.

I think that there is still a problem in accommodating
relationships among different states, but also there are
separatism movements around the world.

There are the clashes, ethnic violence -- including at a local
level -- between groups of different civilizations in many
places. So those are the types of elements we should try to
prevent and to contain so that it would not escalate.

You stress the need for patience and wisdom to prevent this
chaos. How would you translate these into action?

I don't think I would because I can't specify what would be
the particular things that we have to do to reduce the problem of
violence. Except that it is very important -- since we are going
to live in a multicultural, multicivilizational world -- that
people realize that they must attempt to accommodate and develop
ways of coexisting with people who are very different from
themselves.

How would you relate this global trend -- the weakening of
authority, the seeking of identity in smaller groups -- with what
is happening in Indonesia?

I'm not an expert on Indonesia. It seems to me that we have
had and do have a situation now where the authority of the states
that have existed is being weakened. That is the global process.
Think of any state where the authority of the state has increased
in the past couple of decades.

I think there are a variety of factors responsible for that
including primarily the inability of states now to perform many
of the functions they performed in the past, both in the economic
area, even in the security area.

Second, other than what you mentioned, which is the searching
of people of their identity which has frequently led them trying
to find an identity in the subnation so in many cases nationalism
is giving way to subnationalism.

What kind of factors do you think will keep Indonesia one
entity?

Historical identity that Indonesians have as a people.

Do you think federalism is a viable option for Indonesia right
now?

I don't know. Certainly most countries in the world with this
large a territory and population, with the exception of China,
have some form of federal system. Russia does, the United States
does, Canada, Germany, Brazil, Australia all have some form of
federalism. Given the large population and territory, federalism
would seem to be a natural system of government for Indonesia.

On the other hand, whether it would be desirable to introduce
the federal system while Indonesia is in the process of
transition from an authoritarian government into a democratic
government I am not sure. Because there is the possibility that
election for regional governments could lead to politicians
coming to power in the regional level who would fight for more
power vigorously.

When would be the right time for Indonesia to introduce this
system?

I don't know.

Will the present condition of Indonesia be strong enough to
ward off its woes?

I can't make a prediction about the future of Indonesia. I can
simply tell you based on the experience of other countries.

There might be some factors at work and I think overall
another factor that probably contributes to the maintenance of
unity in Indonesia would be the economic factor.

Splitting Indonesia into smaller entities would not be in the
long term beneficial because it would be very hard for them to
attract direct foreign investors even though places like East
Kalimantan or Aceh may have oil and gas which would keep them
going for a while, but it is not a basis for long-term economic
development.

Are you saying that some sort of centralization of economic
policy from the central government is still needed here?

I think to achieve economic reform requires an effective and
authoritative government, but not necessarily an authoritarian
government.

When you look at what has happened in the past decade or so in
the former communist countries and Latin American countries and
elsewhere, the governments that are most effective in carrying
out economic reform have been governments that have been elected
democratically and have strong populous support where you have
leaders that have come to power with a broad majority.

They have been able in Poland, Argentina, and in a variety of
other countries, to carry out meaningful economic reform, and
those countries have done very well economically. So I think a
strong democratic leadership is the key to economic reform and
hence economic growth.

And the democratically elected Abdurrahman Wahid government
would be the first step toward that?

Well, it requires a democratically elected government.

Which is much more important, for the time being, to be a
Javanese first, a Sundanese or a Muslim first before being an
Indonesian?

I can't answer that question, that is a question that the
people here have to answer to determine their identity.

If there is a factor to reconcile us, what would be that
factor?

What is important is for countries with different
civilizations to learn to coexist with each other and to
accommodate their differences.

One example is the potential for conflict between the United
States and China. Historically until the mid 19th century China
was the hegemonic power in East Asia and other societies sort of
defined themselves in relationship to Beijing as either being
more independent or more subordinate to Beijing.

That came to an end with the Opium War and China. It seems to
me now for 150 years being subordinated to and humiliated by
Western countries and Japan, China expects to resume something
like its hegemonic position in East Asia.

And it seems that China's industrial development supports
that. These East Asian countries, when they go through rapid
economic development, can become more assertive in international
affairs.

The United States on the other hand has always opposed the
domination of either western Europe or East Asia by another
country.

In this century the United States has fought and won two world
wars and one cold war to prevent that from happening. So a major
issue in international relations in the figure is how to
reconcile the conflicting interests of China and the United
States in East Asia and now work out a basis for accommodation
between the two.

Since they not only have this power conflict -- you also have
different cultures or civilizations -- I don't think it will be
easy to do that. But I don't think it impossible either.

How would you see a drastic change from a former essentially
military regime into a civilian regime?

I think it is a very welcome change.

Why?

Because I don't think military dictatorship is adequate to
meet the need of a country like Indonesia. I am less informed
about Indonesia. My only other visit here was 35 years ago and it
was a very different country then. Now it has developed
economically compared to what it was.

You have a much more complex economy, a much larger middle
class, a much more articulate and demanding population. I don't
think in that situation a military dictatorship would function
effectively.

We have seen in many countries all over the world where
processes of economic development have led to great round of
dictatorship and a movement toward a more democratic system of
government.

But you said the economic factor is important to unifying
Indonesia, and the New Order government did bring economic
progress. Can the present civilian government deliver?

Well, that happened in South Korea with the military regime
for 30 years and it very quickly became a democratic regime. You
had a one party dictatorship in Taiwan that very quickly became a
democratic regime. Now it seems to me that Indonesia is going
through a comfortable process of change.

At least for the first six months. But now do you consider it
less encouraging?

Well, yes.

Isn't it because an economy supported by the military is being
upset by efforts to reduce the role of the military in nondefense
sectors?

Are you saying that the military is responsible for the
improvement of the economy in the past six months?

Not in six months but in 30 years...

OK, I think there is some truth to that as it was a military
regime that was responsible for the very spectacular economic
growth in South Korea.

But that economic growth undermines the capability of the
military to govern a country. And it is necessary to move into a
more pluralistic democratic political system because of the
economic growth.

Are the ideas in your book The Clash of Civilizations relevant
to Indonesia?

Let me emphasize that my whole argument concerning the clash
of civilizations is focused exclusively on the post-Cold War and
what has happened since 1989.

It seems to me that I first set to that theory in 1993 in an
article and in my book in 1996, and I think to a very large
extent my argument has invalidated by what we see going on in the
world. This theory of the clash of civilization doesn't explain
everything.

Is it applicable in Indonesia?

It does have an applicability in Indonesia, certainly.

In this country you have had clashes between Christians and
Muslims, and the conflict over East Timor was of that notion.
Conflicts in Ambon and Lombok which involved rioting and violence
between Christians and Muslims, next door in the southern
Philippines you have Muslim insurgency against the government
there fighting for independence and so.

In that respect the clash of civilization is present here in
Indonesia. I don't think it is terribly serious but you know it
is there.

Don't you think the conflict in East Timor (when it was still
an Indonesian territory) was a conflict between local and central
government, whereas the conflict in Ambon is religious based, and
in Kalimantan ethnic based?

There are various types of conflicts but I think the conflict
over East Timor was certainly a conflict of civilization between
the Catholics in East Timor and the Muslim population in
Indonesia.

So, it was not a conflict between local and central
government?

Well, that was between local and central because the East
Timorese wanted independence and the people did not like to be
governed by people they considered a different civilization. ....
it was at the heart of it just as the Muslims in the southern
Philippines who want independence.

For the past couple of years, people -- especially Muslims
here -- have used symbols of religion either to implement their
power or bargain for it. How do you see this trend?

What you are saying about Indonesia is a worldwide trend which
is the revival of religion as something very central to people's
identity.

I think it is related to all the processes of economic change
and globalization because these processes create a feeling of
alienation, dislocation among people and they have to look to
something for guidance, for support in a moral sense and in a
social sense.

So you have this revival of religion all over the world,
except in western Europe, and one can see it in the way in which
the identity of countries is being redefined in a religious way.

Or at least political movements are developing to redefine
country's identities in religious terms. That of course happened
20 years ago in Iran with the revolution to overthrow the secular
government of the Shah.

We now have a strong political movement in India, Turkey,
Israel, Russia that wants to redefine the secular definition of
national identity of those countries into a religious identity.
They want to reject the secular definition of identity of the
founding fathers of those countries. Nehru, Ataturk, Ben Gurion,
the communists all wanted to create a secular society. This is
being challenged now.

So I think the increasing importance of religion in Indonesia
is part of this worldwide trend.

What would be the best way for the Indonesian government to
accommodate those demands, recognizing religion without ruining
the balance or the harmony?

...I don't know that much about Indonesia.

In your book The Clash of Civilizations, do you still stand by
your prediction that western culture is going to clash with
Muslim and Chinese cultures?

I need to make it clear that you don't really have clashes of
civilization as such because civilizations are cultural entities
and the actors in global politics are political groups, states
are other political groups.

States are increasingly defining their interests more in
cultural terms. Culture is now replacing ideology, which was
central to the identity of state and groups during the Cold War
and we don't talk about conflict of ideologies anymore.

We talk about conflict of culture and it seems that we are
moving into a world that is multicivilizational and multicultural
and so the most dangerous conflict will be those between states
and different cultures.

In your book you said that the Western culture is unique...

Every culture is unique.

That Western culture is precious...

Well, but that doesn't mean that other culture aren't. Islam
is unique, Chinese Confucianism culture is unique.

But your book may give the impression that Western culture is
somehow superior than other cultures?

No I don't. I think certain cultures may be more conducive,
more favorable to something than other cultures.

I have just participated in the production of a book which has
just been published in the United States and the title of that
book is Cultures Matter. In that book there are 18 different
essays by 18 different authors analyzing the role of culture in
relation to economic development and political development.

I think cultures do make a difference and this struck me some
while ago when I was looking at some comparative figures of the
economies of South Korea and Ghana in 1960.

Their economies were virtually identical. They have the same
domestic per capita domestic product at the same nexus in
industry, agriculture and so forth. About the same level of
export or receiving a comfortable amount of economic assistance
from the outside.

But 30 years later South Korea is an industrial powerhouse
with a per capita income 15 times that of Ghana and sophisticated
manufacturing, producing electronic goods and so forth and Ghana
is still Ghana. It has not change very much.

Probably some factors are responsible, but it seems that
culture is definitely one of them. And South Koreans value hard
work, education, learning, discipline and savings and investment.
The Ghanians have different values. But that, as I say, is not
the only explanation. But I think it is quite central in that it
does make a difference.

Somewhere in Clash of Civilizations you said culture follows
power. If everything is stable with power, is there still any
possibility for a clash of civilizations?

Well, I think, culture and power interact with each other.
Historically, certainly there has been a tendency for a political
stability and conflict to develop when you have significant
changes in the countries.

If countries have different cultures, the probability of
conflict increases. Scholars of international relations argue
that it is likely to give rise to what they call hegemonic war
and a new hegemony appears and you have a shift in the balance of
power, and in a number of cases that is precisely what has
happened.

In your book you also touch on how western power is increasing
in Asia, do you still see that now?

Long term, certainly.

Is America now still the number one power?

Surely. The United States will be number one economically and
militarily for years to come. I don't think there is any doubt
about that.

But I think other parts of the world are developing as well.
The Asian financial crisis, at best for three years, obviously
interrupted that (development).

But that would be a relatively brief interruption because in
most nation societies there exist the resources in terms of an
educated and hard working population, tradition of trade and
investment and other factors. We are continuing to promote East
Asian economic development.

When you talk about Asia, do you actually mean East Asia?

Mostly yes, because most Asian countries are still developing.
Not like Singapore, Hong Kong, no, but I am talking about East
Asia generally. Also in South Asia, India is beginning to make
very impressive progress.

China is developing fast, what do you foresee in the near
future?

It is very unlikely that China will continue to average as it
has for the past two decades with 9 or 10 percent annual growth,
it will likely drop to somewhere around 5 or 6 percent, something
like that.

However, China's economy will continue to grow and will become
more and more important and China will become integrated into a
global economy more and join the World Trade Organization, and
that will probably have a more stimulating effect on China.

How does that affect Southeast Asian countries?

They will further expand their economic relationship (between
Southeast Asian countries and China).

Do you think there will be no problem concerning politics?

There may be. As we know, there is the whole South China Sea
issue which will have to be resolved in one way or another.

Your prediction of huge changes in political and economic
systems in Indonesia in 1990s was quite accurate. Don't you want
to give any prediction now?

No.

In your book you said that during transition from an
authoritarian government to a more democratic one, the most
important thing is the process to democracy. Hence the need for
civil society. Do you think Indonesia already has one?

I really can't judge. I only get the impression that there is
a fairly rich civil society with a wide variety of groups,
communal groups, religious groups and other groups.

Why didn't you title your book something like "Excellent
Interrelation Between Civilizations"?

One of the major themes in the book is that one way of
ordering the world in the coming years is on the basis of
civilization.

So I don't talk about the clash of civilizations. I also talk
about how global politics can be given some sense of order on the
basis of civilization.

The way it stands now, are you optimistic or pessimistic?

Well, a little bit of both. (hbk)