Economy and democracy: Don't turn out the light

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