Economy and democracy: Don't turn out the light

Ziad Salim, Mataram/West Nusa Tenggara

In his insightful article (Many entrepreneurs prefer stability to democracy, The Jakarta Post on June 16, 2004), B. Herry- Priyono tried to tackle what he calls "a taboo that keeps trying to stay hidden", i.e., the link between the economy and democracy. His first quote ("During the era of Pak Harto, at least we had stability for business") by a "typical" businesspeople he interviewed "during the 1998 turbulence" and his second ("For business, democracy or tyranny is irrelevant") by "one of (his) respondents" summed up the "taboo". At the end of his article, Herry-Priyono asked us "to turn out the light" as a discussion on democracy is indeed really a "taboo".

While many argued back and forth over the centuries about the relationship between economy and democracy (or broadly, between economy and politics), the laws of economics are independent of politics and are governed by what Adam Smith calls "invisible hand". So of the two quotes above, the second is more valid and the "invisible hand" is all you need if you are doing a real and honest business: If not, you will need "a strong hand" instead.

So the businesspeople that long for the return of a strong man like Soeharto maybe weren't really doing business at all. In fact, they were stealing from the people, ransacking the Indonesian forest and scarring the land for their own profits. The fact of the matter, the business you run determines the system you need; so, if your business is stealing, you will want a kleptocrat running a kleptocracy; if you are doing an honest and open business, you will want an open system, namely a democracy.

In other words, if you are a Procter and Gamble or a Nestle selling consumer goods for the public, who the leader is irrelevant. The market or the "invisible hand" is all you need. But, if you are using Garuda and Pertamina facilities for your own airline and mining business or bringing in 50,000 "national cars" (that are made in Korea) escorted by national police and parked them on a public land near the airport, of course you would yearn for a strong leader (and preferably your own father).

The relationship between economy and democracy is neither taboo nor "couched in strange language" as the writer alluded.

The clamor for so-called a strong government by businesspeople is actually a red herring, because it depends on what you mean by a strong leader and which businesspeople you are talking about or talking to. The article would have shed more light, had the author revealed the background of the 86 businesspeople he interviewed. But whoever they were, interviewing them at the height of national trauma in 1998 would have produced people with "angst" who would love nothing more than to return to their good old days.

The notion of strong leaders, bandied about incessantly not only by those who miss their good old "stealing" days above but also by those with short memories or intentionally want to re- introduce a military man in public office for their own political and economic agenda. It is another a red herring because there is no really such a thing as a strong leader.

It all depends on the context (Louis the XIV who claimed himself to be the state was actually run by his wife; as was Ronald Reagan, one of the strongest of modern post-war American Presidents; even an absolute strongman like Hitler could not conquer Eva Brown or her dog). Conversely, Lee Kuan Yew (the example cited by one of the interviewees) built Singapore to what it is now (from Third World to First, to quote the title of his memoirs), not because he is "a strongman" but an astute business leader who can see far into the future what business would really need.

In reality, the strong leader is usually only strong towards his opponents or hopeless people. Towards his own friends (or cronies and his own business children), the strong Pak Harto mentioned in the first quote was in fact weak and a push-over. He was unable to face his people or his opponents on a level playing field so he rigged every election and gebuk (clobbered) every general who dared to whisper the truth to his ear or tried to defy him.

So when he had to step down in 1998, there wasn't any "strong man" left to replace or rescue him or to continue his legacy as he had beaten all of them. Left to inherit his thrown was Habibie who the "typical" interviewee identified as "weak" and "knows nothing about how to create stability".

Conceptually, there is no strong leader in a democracy or more correctly, democracy does not need or rarely produce a strong leader. Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people so the people vote for one leader out of themselves. That is why, a properly elected leader in a democracy is always a "small" man (or woman), because the need is not to lead the people (which calls for a strong leader) but to follow the people's wishes (by listening and responding to their wishes and grievances).

So all the world's current democracies have leaders that are truly common and ordinary. There are no more Churchills and Roosevelts to be had and even in their times they were not products of democracy but of war imposed on democracies, which turned them into giants.

History indicates that so-called strong leaders usually have seized power during a crisis (like a thief in the middle of the night) then maintain it for years (by ruthlessly crushing their enemies). Then we call them strong. Those who continue to juxtapose the need for a so-called business stability and strong leader will deceive themselves and will eventually be surprised by the strong leader they conspire to promote.

We must remember that democracy is based on the trust and confidence people place on themselves and each other, to rule and to govern themselves according the values they hold dear and the laws they have written together (or through their representatives). What we need to make sure is a leader that will be true and faithful to the "social contract" and be willing to be the "servant" of the people and relinquish power when he is kicked out by the people who put him there.

That the country may have one or two "bad" leaders or the government changes hands once too often because the people choose wrong is no reason to opt out of democracy and run into the arms of another strong man in the name of stability.

Finally, juxtaposing "stability" and "democracy" as if they are polar opposites (as in the title of the article mentioned above) is misleading. Statistically, democracies are more stable than any other systems.

Of course, it depends on how you define "stability" as there are many types of stability and they are not necessarily isomorphic. In the long run, though, democracy in Indonesia too will get stabilized.

The longing for a strong man and "stability" is the same as a childhood fantasy for a father figure and a nice cuddle in the middle of the night: It will eventually die off as we grow older and gain some confidence in ourselves. While waiting, we can at least keep talking about it. It is not a "taboo", so Herry- Priyono, please do not turn off the light!

The writer, who formerly worked with several international development organizations, can be reached at zeeoddone@hotmail.com