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.