In search of a solution to economic disparity

President Soeharto touched on the nation's economic disparity in his annual budget speech Monday. Ignas Kleden suggests a solution.

JAKARTA (JP): The notion of "national stability" is a basic characteristic of the New Order government's political thinking. Initially, it was in perfect counterpoise to the political instability resulting from the Old Order -- the context of its genesis determined its content.

Practically speaking, national stability refers to the stability of both state and government. This is understandable, since political instability during the Old Order meant the high frequency in which cabinets came and went.

However, to understand national stability only in terms of black-and-white comparison to the Old Order is not always helpful sociopolitically, and not always correct sociologically, at least at this point in the nation's history. A nation is composed of both state and society -- government institutions are formed in accord with the constitution and social organizations emerge from the spontaneous initiatives of social groups.

National stability should, accordingly, be understood not merely as the stability of state and government but also the stability of society; it means not only the security of government institutions but also that of social organizations. This is something more important than we tend to believe, as whatever happens to the society will, in one way or another, impinge upon the stability of the state and government.

To a certain extent, it is not only the state and government who control a society's security; the stability of social organizations contribute much to the security of the state and government. An analogy for this might be that it is not only the strong hand of the father which gives stability to the family but also the security of the mother and the spontaneous growth of the children.

This is not to say that society can be seen and treated as a monolithic unit. It is not, which becomes all the more apparent if we look at the economic power of various groups. There is a solid line separating various social groups with regard to their respective economic position.

In Indonesia, socioeconomic disparity has several different -- albeit related -- aspects we need to understand. In the first place, it has to do with the redistribution of income. In the second place, it relates to the opportunity to earn a living. The first question refers to the distribution of the benefits of development, the second with distributing the costs of development.

In his budget speech on Jan. 6 the President called upon the press, social commentators and analysts not only to keep bringing this issue to the nation's attention but also to focus on a solution to the problem.

One viable proposal may be that we better differentiate the question of poverty from the question of social sustainability, both currently embroiled in the debate.

This differentiation is not only necessary but helpful, as poverty means a lack of access to a share of the national product, whereas social sustainability relates to various social groups' ability to maintain their current living standards.

The question of increased opportunities in the first and deprived opportunity in the second have a considerably different nature.

In reality this would mean various social groups should have the feeling that, given they have not yet had a share in the division of this country's development, their opportunity to earn lucratively has not been eliminated.

It is a telling experience to visit Japan. There, in the most expensive part of a metropolitan city, such as Roppongi, Tokyo, you might see a small noodle restaurant that stays afloat while proudly telling its clients about the age-old experience of their small business.

Both the big cities and small towns of Germany could tell a similar tale. One might come across a small bakery there with a billboard reading "founded in 1798". The small business has been sustainable not only in the face of modern development but also two world wars which annihilated many achievements in economics and civilization. Social sustainability has been proved possible in developed countries. But how?

One developmental issue which will escape all effort of quantification is the security of the citizens to earn a living, and their right to expect certain human rights. Of course there are always reasons to deprive weak social groups of their last economic resort on behalf of development. But the moral of any change to the system in which we all co-exist should be: the working of an entire chain depends upon its weakest parts.

In the 1970s political discussion in Indonesia was divided between a drive towards prosperity and a drive for national security. Perhaps the issue of security should once again be brought to the fore, by saying it is better to have a law-based security than a power-based security. The new formula might be: national stability equals social stability.

The writer is a sociologist based in Jakarta.