Globalization boosts democracy

By Aleksius Jemadu

BANDUNG (JP): The survival of our nation-state is facing great challenges today. The recent riots that broke out in several places shook the foundation of this nation. At the same time, the integration of our economy into global capitalism could have a tremendous impact upon the cohesiveness of our society.

It is therefore important to revitalize our shared ideal to be a just and prosperous society. We should never forget that our nation-state sprang from the unity of purpose shared by the founding fathers when they were struggling for independence from colonial rule.

Indeed, one's sense of belonging to a nation-state is nothing else than a state of mind which presupposes a willingness to live together as a nation and a constant commitment to build a modern state. As long as we can keep the progressive dynamics of this state of mind, there is no reason to be skeptical about the accomplishment of our common goals.

This article is primarily concerned with the possible consequences of global capitalism upon the future evolution of our nation-state. Dealing effectively with challenges that might result from our involvement in the global free trade would necessitate a good understanding not only of the dynamics of our external environment but also the evolution of our own society.

It is often argued that our political stability thus far has been to a great extent due to the indispensable role of the government. Instead of nurturing society-led stability, we have been too preoccupied with establishing state-led stability. The role of the government is decisive in almost every essential aspect of our social life. As a result, our civil society has become very weak and tends to be indifferent about policy issues which are of high public importance.

The chairman of the National Development Planning Agency (Bappenas), Ginandjar Kartasasmita, said in March that the state should provide appropriate channels so that social energy might be transformed into societal creativity which is essential for the nation (Kompas, March 22, 1997).

The experiences of industrialized countries have taught us that people's creativity in science, technology, and arts, would develop well if there was enough freedom of expression. It is the responsibility of the government to provide a conducive atmosphere in which people with special talents could develop their creativity. It should be noted that in the era of free trade, nations will compete to become a source of technological innovation so that more efficient production processes might be ensured.

Many analysts believe that in the era of globalization and free trade the role of the private sector tends to increase while the role of the state tends to be limited. Restricting people's political freedom in the mid of global economic liberalization would be an anachronism. Political leaders in developing countries should learn how to adapt to an open society where people's political freedom cannot be denied. They are required to be ready to accept the presence of a countervailing power in the political system so that the actions and inactions of the ruling power might be effectively controlled. Political democracy without independent control over the execution of political power would be unthinkable.

One of the basic characteristics of our society is that we can easily reach consensus on certain political issues no matter how difficult it is to bridge the conflicting stands. An instant reconciliation between two conflicting ethnic groups (the Dayaks and Madurese) in West Kalimantan recently is one example.

Why weren't the fundamental roots of this social problem examined? Can the government guarantee the same strife will not happen again? And what is the connection between the riots and the way the central government accommodates (or neglects) local interests in the development process? These are the questions we have to deal with if we want to see the ethnic conflict in its broader context. It seems our common strategy in dealing with conflict is a denial of its existence which sometimes leads to more radical violence.

Our society is also very vulnerable to manipulation or cooptation by the political elite.

The endless rivalries within the Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI) is one example. Many would agree that the rivalry between the ousted chairwoman, Megawati, and the government-backed chairman, Soerjadi, was not spontaneous. If external elements had not intervened in the internal affairs of the party, the party wouldn't have ended up in such a mess which ultimately destroyed its future.

The worst impact of this conflict was that PDI lost its credibility among its constituents as the election showed.

The fact the present leadership of PDI has to fulfill its "moral obligation" in satisfying the dominant power means it is difficult for the party to create an independent policy in the political system.

The existence of opportunistic politicians in the political party could prevent it from becoming an independent and reliable countervailing force in such a monolithic political entity. There could never be a mass-based political party as long as the political system tried to coopt political groups into the dominant power establishment. There goes our hope for a small hybrid of a democratic future.

The "Megawati phenomenon" clearly demonstrates that our political system is not yet mature enough to tolerate the presence of a countervailing force. The ousting of Megawati from her position as a legitimate leader of PDI was an indication of a long-lasting paradox in the political system. On the one hand, we aspire to be a democratic state based on the fourth principle of Pancasila, but on the other hand our political conduct remains as primitive as ever.

This is a reality we shouldn't be proud of. Only independent political parties have the ability and courage to exercise effective public control which is a conditio sine qua non in a civilized political entity. Indeed, if we want to become a modern industrial society we need to build a democratic political system. The experience of the former Soviet Union and East European countries should tell us that without political democracy there could never be an industrialized society.

There is an increasingly persuasive argument that the key to a democratic future for Indonesia is the empowerment of its civil society. A strong civil society can be said to exist if political infrastructure such as political groups, mass organizations, trade unions, professional organizations, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) can function independently and be fully committed to striving for people's aspirations so that they might be accommodated by the political superstructures (the government).

Our long emphasis on state-led political stability, while necessary for sustaining economic growth, has resulted in the depoliticization of the people.

The concept of a "floating mass" has been used by the New Order government as an approach to political participation and the mobilization of mass support. The aim of this concept was to ban all political activities at the village level with the exception of a short campaign period immediately before the general election.

The justification of the ban was based on the rationale that in the 1950s and early 1960s rural people were involved in divisive politics and ideological fragmentation due to the struggle for power among political parties.

The government wanted to liberate people in the villages from manipulation by political parties. Therefore, political parties were not allowed to establish organizational structures at the village level. Thus, political groups were deprived of their popular base.

But the dominant Golkar gained from this political arrangement because it could rely on the local government administration to sidestep the restriction. It is then possible to say that through the application of the concept of a "floating mass", the government has depoliticized the majority of Indonesian people who live in villages.

It should not come as a surprise if the participation of the village people in the formulation and implementation of development programs are mainly a result of top-down mobilization by government officials and does not constitute a free choice or a bottom-up spontaneous process. Since those parties not in power are generally weak, they cannot be expected to impose change on government policies.

Our colonial masters used to think the Indonesian people knew nothing about their problems. It would be shameful if such an arrogant attitude, which we once tried to eliminate, still existed today.

With better education and more access to development information, the Indonesian people today are fully aware of their basic political and economic rights. Therefore, the dominant power should respect them as legitimate carriers of the demand for political and economic justice. If that be the case, then we have a good reason to be optimistic about the democratic future of this country.

The writer is a lecturer at the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences of the Catholic Parahyangan University, Bandung. He obtained his Ph.D. in social sciences from KU Leuwen, Belgium.

Window: With better education and more access to development information the Indonesian people today are fully aware of their basic political and economic rights.