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)