Indonesian should learn from India on democracy

Indonesian should learn from India on democracy

Baladas Ghoshal, Professor, International Relations,
Universiti Utara Malaysia, Kedah

The forceful resignation of Soeharto and the consequent
downfall of the New Order regime were both an opportunity and a
challenge for Indonesia. It was an opportunity because it freed
the Indonesians from the oppressive and claustrophobic
authoritarian political processes, and allowed them to shape
their politics and their society with a new vision of a
democratic order.

The absence of a democratic tradition together with
institutions that were corrupt and a carry-over from the earlier
regime made the task of democratic transition even more
difficult. Despite progress, While there have been significant
gains in democratic development, in the form of constitutional
amendments, new laws ensuring freedom of expressions and
organizations and basic democratic and human rights, as well as
empowering legislative institutions vis-a-vis the executive,
there is much that needs to be done to empower the people and to
create conditions for a more participatory politics.

How does Indonesia do it? When one refers to democracy, it is
always referred to Western democracy.

First president Sukarno scrapped the Western parliamentary
system chosen under the 1950 provisional constitution and tried
his own concept of Guided Democracy, believed to be in tune with
the Indonesian culture and tradition. But it failed to deliver
goods to the people and ultimately was overthrown by events and
social forces that found him too close to the Communists.

Soeharto's New Order was no different from Guided Democracy,
only the guides were different. In fact, he retained all the
institutions devised by Sukarno to rule by decree and an
authoritarian hand and strengthened them further to keep a
tighter grip on society. The other difference was that power was
diffused under Sukarno between himself, the army and the
communists. Soeharto was able to have a complete control over all
the social forces with the help of the armed forces.

One thing, however, is certain that a political system must
evolve from its own social, political and economic
characteristics.

The Indian experience, which generally adopted the Western
form of democracy but moderated it with its own unique features,
may be more relevant to Indonesia's trial and tryst with
democracy. India under the British and Indonesia under the Dutch,
the two countries have many common features.

Indonesia has a Muslim majority but gives freedom to other
religions. India while having a Hindu majority has a significant
Muslim minority (in fact the second largest Muslim country). Both
subscribe to unity in diversity and a pluralist ideology.

The nation builders of India rightly thought that its
pluralist diversity and the people's welfare could be tackled
only by democratic means and solutions, and it has helped India
to emerge not only as the world's largest democracy but also to
keep the unity of the country.

The multi-faceted problems that Indonesia face in the post-
Soeharto period can only be addressed through democratic
solutions.

Current political and economic uncertainties may lead some
people to feel nostalgic about the Soeharto days of order and
stability, yet the process towards democratization in Indonesia
is irreversible.

The society has become far more complex under the pressure of
economic development and globalization, the fruits of which can
only be enjoyed with a regulatory governance that is transparent
and accountable. Diverse and pluralist Indonesia requires a more
participatory and people-oriented governance which can only be
offered under a democratic system.

What has helped India to keep democracy going for more than 56
years of its existence? First, its democratic institutions which
can mediate the conflicting and competing interests in a diverse
society. Even before India became independent, its leaders
devoted considerable energy to lay the foundations of democracy
by creating institutions.

Second, India was fortunate to inherit a very efficient and
professional bureaucracy to provide the necessary administrative
support to the political elites. The British trained the Indian
Civil Service, which was later turned into Indian Administrative
service (IAS) was the sheet anchor of the political elites that
provided the necessary support for the stability of the country.
The strength of the Indian bureaucracy lied in the way it is
recruited -- on meritocracy and entirely on a competitive basis.
The Union Public Service Commission, a statutory body, under the
constitution of India is entrusted with the responsibility of all
civil service recruitment.

In Indonesia's reform period, the country needs an efficient
and incorrupt bureaucracy to implement the policies of an
inexperienced political elite in the administration of affairs.

In electoral politics, Indonesia can learn something from the
Indian experience. One effective means of ensuring free and fair
elections is the role of the independent Election Commission with
its own administrative and enforcement regulations.

India has been able to create the institution of an
independent election commission to organize and oversee the
electoral process. Even though the officers of the election
commission are appointed from the government bureaucracy, its
officials have always displayed independence and impartiality and
have been protected by the constitution to withstand the
pressures from the ruling party. The Indian Election Commission
is one of the pillars of Indian democracy.

In the area of grassroots democracy again, Indonesia can study
India's "Panchayati system" where officials at the local are
directly elected by the people and who are the eventual decision-
makers in the governance of their affairs.

The Panchayati democracy has been a great success in India in
empowering not only the ordinary people, but also it has also
empowered women in a big way in running the affairs of the lowest
unit of the administration, i.e. the village. Now that Indonesia
is experimenting with decentralization and will require
institutions to make the decentralization meaningful, it could
look into the functioning of such grassroots organizations in
order to create the foundations for both democracy at the
grassroots level as well as for a more decentralized Indonesia.

And India's management of civil-military relations for all
these years after independence could be another area which
Indonesia can study and learn.

As the two countries have similar characteristics and face
similar problems in nation building, it is essential that
interactions be created at the civil society level between the
two countries so that each can learn from other's experiences.

The writer is also professor of international relations at
Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi.