Indonesia needs to avoid Japanese syndrome
Indonesia needs to avoid Japanese syndrome
By Sauri Hasibuan
JAKARTA (JP): An object at rest stays at rest. An object in
motion stays in motion. That, at least, is the Newtonian law of
physics. A theorem that is both definable and formulaic.
But what if the object at hand is a nation-state: an entity
that is as demanding as it is uncompromising in its expectation
of a higher return of nationalist quotient? What then?
To compound the matter further: What if that entity is now in
a state of crisis which it has not ever experienced before? Do we
support the country at all costs, such as in "sickness and in
health", or do we transform ourselves into its severest critics?
At the risk of hyperbole, Indonesia is in a deep crisis, or at
least in the middle of one. It is facing a problem that is
financial, economic and political. A triple whammy one may add.
First are the problems aggravated by the sudden and steep
devaluation of its currency, the rupiah. The second, which
follows on the heels of the first, is the economic difficulty
produced by the need to maintain a high interest rate to ensure a
stable currency. And the third is the political cost that is
derived from the very maintenance of a high interest rate.
And if the Indonesia Bank Restructuring Agency (IBRA) is
pressured by all political quarters to speed up the banks and
corporate restructuring program, which currently involves as many
as 100 banks, then the banking institution itself would
inevitably be seen by foreign investors as weak. This is a
perception that would be economically costly by implication and
suggests a monetary policy that is unsteady and susceptible to
political tugs and pulls. The Bank Bali scandal may be a good
case in point.
If the problems seem plenty, that is because they are. In
addition to the above, the government of Indonesia also has to
deal with several present as well as impending difficulties,
which are providing critical services to the most defenseless
part of society and keeping its budget deficit manageable.
These difficulties point to a nation-state in distress by
which its range and complexity seem overwhelming. The all
important question is therefore: Do we support the country
through its present trial and tribulation or do we criticize it
to bits, albeit constructively?
The answer requires an understanding of the concept and
practice of patriotism.
Patriotism comes from the Greek word, patria (father). The
civic meaning of patriotism is that of love and affection for
one's native land or country.
If we see patriotism through a father and son or mother and
daughter matrix, then we arrive at a relationship that is both
hierarchical and paternal in notion, therein, children obeying
the parents.
In itself, however, there is nothing negative about obeying
one's parents. After all, life's pitfalls are avoided essentially
because parents are there.
But what if the government wishes to be seen as the nation's
de facto parents too? What then? Do we, in effect, pledge our
allegiance with no questions asked?
The answer lies in clarifying the misplaced doctrine of
patria, which has seeped into Asian governmental practice.
To be sure, no country should enjoy the automatic privilege or
prerogative to project itself as the parental "other," i.e. in
full mimic of the relationship that we share with our biological
parents. The reason for this exception is simple: Whereas we come
from our parents -- a condition which is nonvolitional but
nonetheless predestined, albeit in random -- it is nevertheless a
fact that the government comes from us.
In short, the government is an entity that is from and of our
creation.
Indeed, whether we will it to exist for utilitarian reasons,
as claimed by Jeremy Bentham, or for social-contractual
convenience, as explained by Jean Rousseau, the indisputable fact
is that the government was born in and from our midst.
The midwife that delivered the government was the public will
of sui generic (we the people).
Thus, while Asian culture dictates that parents are to a large
degree above rebuke, this is a luxury that cannot be offered to
the government. On the contrary, all governments should not be
free from rebuke if and when the situation so warrants.
That being said, good civic consciousness also requires that
on those occasions when we criticize our government, we do so
with a great deal of forbearance. Criticism should always be
constructive and not cantankerous, strong and never spurious.
Above all, criticism should always, as a principle, be
tempered by a sense of justice and balance. To lunge at a
government precisely because it has fallen on bad economic times
is akin to an opportunistic display of bad blood and venom. This
attitude is not only unfavorable, but inconsistent to the demands
of patriotism and the spirit of reformasi (political reform).
In handling the economic crisis, the government has been thin-
skinned and quite averse to criticism. As such, it has resorted
to muffling the media and people. This, in reality, is to confuse
suppression with solutions. To be matter-of-fact, this situation
cannot be allowed to prevail for two strategic reasons.
One, the foreign investor community is no longer interested in
gauging Indonesia's economic attractiveness strictly from the
vantage point of stability as it is with transparency and
accountability, two notions which are thought to exist under a
climate of free speech and press.
Two, if an Indonesian is to be courted as active and
responsible citizenry, he/she involved in the resuscitation of
various moribund economic sectors must, by the dint of this
factor, be given a more participatory role and space. Only when
the margins of discussion are expanded and encouraged can the
scope of troubleshooting, which is critical in any quick
recovery, become viable.
To believe that the government can resolve the economic crisis
alone or through sheer manipulation of the interest rate, is to
assume that the root of the problem is merely monetary. However,
such an assumption, again, can only be erroneous.
Economists generally agree that while all economic crises are
inevitably due to a cycle of booms and busts, the very nature of
recovery is called "consumer confidence".
Indeed, the lack of consumer confidence is essentially the
syndrome why Japan has not been able to make a due recovery after
almost eight years of economic contraction, despite an interest
rate that is pegged at less than 1 percent. This is because no
one is borrowing from the banks since no one expects the economy
to recover, which thus perpetuates a self-fulfilling cycle. At
least for now, credit should be given to Habibie's administration
for bringing down inflation, which is now negative on a monthly
basis.
More importantly, the lack of consumer confidence is also due
to the perception, which is true in this case, that all policy
strings are pulled by the bureaucrats, a breed that spends their
days and nights confined in their respective ministerial cocoons,
out of touch with what consumers really want. The unique
situation that emerges in Japan is therefore a skeptical and
apathetic populace; indeed, one that attempts to conserve more
than to consume. Robbed from the Japanese people is the very
incentive to participate and be engaged in the country's economic
revival.
Like Japan, Indonesia has its fair share of economic problems.
If they remain untreated, they could fester. What Indonesia
needs, aside from capital injection and foreign investment, is
the creation of a dynamic community which is able to pinpoint its
economic problems. For a country that is in ferment, stays in
ferment. One that is at rest, stays at rest.
Contextualizing patriotism means the elimination of the
Japanese syndrome in order to allow for a greater flourish of
opinions to help Indonesia overcome its economic problems. This
is because Japan has tried to engineer a recovery without an
active citizenry and has inevitably failed. It is high time that
Indonesia takes a path that is different and bold.
The writer is the business development manager of PT Airindo
Bersih Jaya.