Focusing on substantial rationality

By Meuthia Ganie Rochman

JAKARTA (JP): Indonesians are witnessing a deep political change at the close of the century as the result of economic and other crises.

Just two years ago, the majority of Indonesians still believed that the country's economic structure had firm bases to encounter challenges in the next millennium. But the current economic crisis has changed many aspects of the country's life -- the collapse of a great deal of economic activity, political turbulence and change of leadership.

Basic political changes have been achieved and more are being pursued. People are demanding new political rules of the game, symbols and visions of the social and political orders.

The changes happening in Indonesia are not only a matter of power play but also originated from the civilization process encountered by the country and other nations in their international relations. In this context what kind of vision needs to be developed by this country?

External power has long been acknowledged as playing a role in shaping a country's direction. The external power includes superpower nations or institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that promote their own interests.

In reality, the external power might be something that is more basic. This kind of power takes shape in the principles of how a modern state must be organized, including how it effects relations.

Such principles have been evolving since the emergence two centuries ago of nation-states in Europe. The newly emerging nation-states then promoted their own principles through technology and economic power.

The most basic principle is rationality -- that human actions must occur in a calculable context. The big domain for the creation of rationality is a nation-state. Within a nation-state, the principle of "calculable context" applies in the relationship between state apparatus and the people.

This principle has various names depending on historical development, such as "objective and efficient bureaucracy", "clean government" and "good governance".

The principle is manifested through certain forms of institutions. Almost all countries in this modern time, for example, have a similar category of ministries.

Since World War II the tendency to expand forms of functions throughout the world has been getting stronger. Bodies like the League of Nations (currently called the United Nations), the IMF, the World Bank, and the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) have expanded their international programs in economy, science, education and politics. The success or failure of their programs is measured by common standards, such as gross national product (GNP), literacy rate and participation rate in general elections.

The programs within the international organizational framework have been imbued with a spirit called substantive rationality. One basic kind of substantive rationality is the view that within a nation-state political change is normal and sovereignty should be in the people's hands.

This view was developed by the French Revolution. Some historians have even argued that the French Revolution changed not only France but also the world.

The nation-state concept rejects a closed political system, either one based on blood relations or on domination. Change must be possible in accordance with the people's will.

In the next development there then emerged other values which were considered necessary to support the edifice of nation- states, such as equality before the law, human rights, representative participation and sustainable development. Such principles became guidance for the work of some forms of organization.

Both kinds of rationality, formal and substantive, are vehicles that shape identity, status and legitimation of a nation's life. There are sanctions, from stigmatization to economic embargo, imposed upon governments and nations which have a bad status.

In the past, sanctions were mostly imposed by foreign governments. But now people's linkages across nationalities have played an important role in shaping responses to "bad" national governments. There has already emerged what is called "market dictatorship" in which investors can easily leave out a country considered as having violated market ethics. All are served by the expansion of information technology, like international television networks and the Internet.

Even though every nation is expected to observe the international framework of organization and to promote its substantive values, still there are forms of fragmented rationality in many nations.

Internationally recognized organizations such as government ministries and banks often violate their original organizational principles. Many government bodies establish hidden arrangements that, in effect, divert public resources. Many banks lend money on the basis of personal connections, not on that of economic potential. Universities produce graduates that do not match with society's needs.

Indonesia, during the Soeharto era, several times violated international principles in economy and civil domains. Its "national car" program, highly criticized by the World Trade Organization (WTO), its deviation from agreements with the IMF and grave human rights violations in East Timor and other areas are among outstanding examples that have tarnished its image as a reliable state actor. The Indonesian government then often viewed foreign criticisms as intervention in its internal authority. Its leaders forgot that any kind of relationship needs structures.

In this era of reform, the situation seems to be getting worse day by day. It is certainly not because people put new demands on the state apparatus but because of the government's stubborn attempts to maintain the status quo.

Since the mass rioting in the middle of May, an image that there is no order in this "newly poor country" has begun to develop among foreigners.

Formerly, Indonesia was known as a country where "order" was the buzzword in politics and patronage was a decisive way in economics. But now, the government is incapable of maintaining order and managing the economy. Economic activities, especially those among different nations, are established by contracts and trust but who is going to maintain their contracts if very basic security is a luxury nowadays?

Indonesia's image is also badly tarnished by various violent actions that have not been resolved. They, like things left behind by train passengers, are lost from sight but they still exist in reality. Some events were so extremely violent that the world can hardly understand them. Indonesia has now become notorious as a country with terribly low standards of humanity, a country that is once again struggling to establish the basic necessities of a modern nation.

As other nations are celebrating the close of the century with various kinds of cultural and intellectual activities, the Indonesian people are facing unchartered waters for their future. Crisis after crisis develops.

Some groups in society seem to have realized the potential danger facing this nation: Once the social order breaks down, there will be little hope of restoring the economy.

Indonesia may be left out from the political and economic agenda of other nations. Some foreign development agencies have been thinking of cutting their involvement in Indonesia, considering this country to be highly problematic. Maybe people can say that it does not really matter as Indonesia can develop its own resources. However, this is a very unrealistic choice. This country has embedded its life in the world economy.

Therefore, there is no other way than adjusting its organizational framework or values to international structures. To do so, there are some basic problems that must be solved.

* Indonesians must establish functional relationships between the state and society. In the past, the relationship between the two were characterized by dominance of the state and dependency of society. The problem now is to build an authoritative and yet fully representative state.

* They must develop a framework of citizenship in the sense that society acknowledges the rights and responsibility of collective life.

* They must determine national identity -- becoming a nation that only consumes ideas and goods, but one ready to be realistic and work hard.

* They must solve the problems of double transition -- democratic transition amid international demands to open the economy.

Surely, there is no easy way. Relative prosperity before the crisis has mesmerized people into not paying attention to the national identity and to the questions of where this nation might go.

Indonesians, for example, forgot that behind the supermarkets and luxurious buildings, their international achievements were scant. They also forgot that foreign investors came because they sold labor and natural resources cheaply, not because of good services and skills.

Some forms of formal rationality in the world may not be good for Indonesia. But Indonesian people can adopt some substantive rationality, such as universal human rights, sustainable development and equality in order to adjust themselves to international requirements. They are mostly full of goodwill. The good principles are treated as guidance in the development of mechanisms and methods for managing society.

The writer is a teaching staffer at the University of Indonesia's Department of Sociology.