Globalization boosts democracy

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.