Indonesian democracy or 'demo-crazy'?

Indonesian democracy or 'demo-crazy'?

Ziad Salim, Mataram/West Nusa Tenggara

Comments on the prospect of democracy in Indonesia range from
the most optimistic (look at the free and peaceful legislative
election) to less so or even pessimistic (look at the cynical
post-election maneuverings of the party leaders, loud
protestation of election results, daily street demonstration
against practically everything, etc).

As of now, the optimist may have it right: The election 2004
has been peaceful, the ruling party lost some ground and new
parties are emerging, indicating not only a subtle and peaceful
shift of power but a democracy in the making.

Looking beyond election, however, the pessimists may have it
right. After all, election is only a (formal) part of democracy.
The true measures of democracy (legislative and executive checks
and balances, independent judiciary, institutionalization and
respect for the opposition, law and human freedoms and other
aspects of civil society) are what separate true democracies from
bogus ones.

On these scores, Indonesian democracy has still got a long way
to go. In fact, judging by the frequent and rampant street
demonstration in all cities and towns of Indonesia, a democratic
political participation is still a lot to be desired.

It is a historical fact that street demonstrations have been
the most often used (or abused?) means of regime change in
Indonesia as nearly all national governments have been brought
down by street demonstrations in one form or another, the latest
example being the fall of Soeharto regime.

Recently, however, even local governments (Regents of Kampar
and Banyuwangi) have been brought down by demonstrations. This is
new and portends of worse things to come.

When the post-Soeharto government of Habibie was also plagued
by street demonstrations, Habibie personally replied that
demonstration was part of democracy. Indeed many believe that
since street demonstrations are activities of the people, they
are a form of political participation, hence a legitimate part of
democracy (democracy being the government of the people).

But these assumptions are not universally shared: After all,
the people who participate in street demonstrations are not
exactly or always representative of the people; secondly, street
demonstration in political parlance is not usually regarded as a
"normal" form of political participation in a democracy but
rather, a non-institutionalized form signaling a bottleneck in
the communication between the government and the governed or lack
of venues and avenues for an effective participation and/or
opposition .

The concept of the "people" in democracy has been a subject of
controversy since its birth. Historically, however, the concept
has been romanticized to mean the government of all the people
(hence, the clichi, the government of the people, by the people
and for the people) though in reality and in the early years of
democracy, the poor and the uneducated (including women) were
formally disenfranchised or excluded from all forms of political
participation.

Now, one-man one-vote is de rigueur in democracy but with it
comes the double-edge threat to democracy, i.e., declining
participation of those who are knowledgeable of its intricacies
and nuances and increase participation of those who are ignorant
and disenchanted whose idea of participation is often street
demonstrations.

Since this form of political participation often leads to
traffic and other public disturbances or violent and bloody
confrontations with the police, a law and order man (usually a
military or ex-military man, or a "Hitler") who promises to
restore order may emerge through the same democratic process and
take over, killing democracy itself in his wake.

While Indonesian democracy must worry about all the above, it
must especially worry about the challenge to its nascent
democracy coming from the street. It is well known that street
demonstration in Indonesia or demo or unjuk rasa can be
voracious, violent and incessant.

It is probably one of those (along with corruption and
constant fascination with men in uniform) that have become part
of the political culture. Daily viewing of the electronic media
gives the impression that the country is in total chaos. If it
does not kill its democracy, it will certainly lead it to what
has been dubbed "demo-crazy", a democracy marred by crazy
demonstrations everyday and everywhere.

That this scares off would-be tourists and future investors is
too obvious to mention, even if the street demonstrations are
only in one small location somewhere in the vast archipelago.

But Indonesians appear to have benignly tolerating the demo or
unjuk rasa, given its frequency and widespread occurrence. It
seems every time there is dissatisfaction with anything, a demo
ensues.

The very term unjuk rasa itself even romanticizes the concept,
reflecting a certain lack of concern among Indonesians about its
seriousness. It is also a misnomer, because what is being
unjuked is not rasa or feeling but warm-blooded human bodies not
too infrequently with sticks, rocks and machetes in their hands.

It should be called unjuk otot (flexing the muscles) and
understood as such, i.e., an act of desperate people who fail to
participate democratically or appreciate the true meaning and
nuances of democracy.

Since no one can ban street demonstration entirely, one can
perhaps take it away from the street and put it where it is safe.
In the U.S, most public demonstrations take place in Washington
D.C., at Lincoln Memorial Park; London has its Hyde Park where
the frustrated can practice their oratory skills undisturbed and
without disturbing others; even Singapore is now entertaining the
same idea.

For Jakarta, Taman Monas can be a great location for demo-
crazy Indonesians to manifest their grievances to their hearts'
content. In other words, demonstrations can be domesticated by
allowing them only at a designated field or park or avenue, under
a fixed rule and watchful eye of the law.

To placate those that may be skeptical about the measure, the
government may supplement it with several measures meant to
reduce the public's sense of alienation and powerlessness with
such innovative measures as creation of national (or local)
ombudsman system, institutionalization of opposition, greater
access to those in power all the way up to the President.

Together, the above may enhance democracy and take street
demonstrations away from the street. At worst, they may be
politically cathartic for the country.

Indeed, street demonstration, if legalized in certain areas
only, given permits, watched attentively by caring government
officials, grievances accepted and processed properly,
supplemented further with new political access and transparent
political channels, Indonesian democracy can stay democracy and
the demo-crazies can stay off the street (and those that may want
to use it as an excuse to subvert the young democracy may stay in
their barracks enjoying their military pensions).

The stake for the country is unambiguous: To stay a democracy
or to plunge into a state of constant demonstrations that over
time may sap the strength and energy of its democracy or the
patience of its people.

The writer, who formerly worked with several international
development organizations, can be reached at
zeeoddone@hotmail.com