Indonesia today
It struck me during my recent first visit to Indonesia that many Javanese cities lack the transformation that is common in Europe and the U.S., and which was made possible by the increase in wealth.
Looking at the railway tracks, for example, one can see that the Dutch did not do enough when they were in power to organize railway transportation according to the same standard as Europe. In fact, Indonesia was a colony from which wealth was taken and it seems that up to now, this has retarded development of the country.
In sociology, it is common to distinguish between technical and social leadership, which are two quite different tasks. In Indonesia, the question seems to be how the strong social leadership of Soeharto, who comes from the military camp, can be combined with the new technical leadership which is being demanded.
In France, they said their king should be a friend of the peasants, otherwise the bourgeoisie becomes too powerful. However, it is from such upper classes that technical leadership is recruited. Though affiliated with the bourgeoisie, the military cannot provide sufficiently educated economists, etc.
If the "warrior class" wants to keep a grip on the situation, it should realize that this is generally successful in "empires", a kind of (enforced) confederation of rather autonomous lands. In each autonomous area, a local bourgeoisie will emerge but this is balanced somewhat by those of neighboring areas which seek the interests of their lands first. If no autonomy exists, a too- powerful upper class easily rises in the capital of the empire and continuous conflicts may result.
Where needed, the Dutch East Indies "empire" allowed much autonomy on the condition that taxes were paid in money or goods from the plantations. While this tax was taken from the poor peasants especially and caused retardation of development, the Jakarta social leader should do better now and spare the poor worker and support him by paying out a share of oil revenues (with multiplier effects).
The burden must be put on the shoulders of the rich. Taxation consists of applying the law and the law is meant to protect the weak against the strong and cunning. The IMF cannot work within the law and does not know about it. The IMF favors the bourgeoisie with its free market principles.
Most Europeans that come to Indonesia today profit enormously from the rupiah devaluation. How many of them compensate the inflation by paying more for accommodation, transportation, etc., than the impoverished average Indonesian can? Instead, they exploit in a new way.
My purpose in writing is also to get from Indonesians more contributions for analysis of the situation. A start to this was made by the President when he said that what the IMF wants is, in part, contradictory to the Constitution. Just realize that the contradiction counts for any good constitution since the law (to protect the weaker) must prevail above the power of money.
JITSE KEIZER
Amsterdam, the Netherlands