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