Focusing on substantial rationality
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.