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.