Indonesia's nation-building process at a crossroad

By Aleksius Jemadu

This is the first of two articles.

BANDUNG (JP): The recent riots in Situbondo, Tasikmalaya, Sanggau Ledo and Rengasdengklok pose a critical question on the prospect of Indonesian political development. We are particularly concerned that the impressive economic performance of the nation in the last few decades would be destroyed if the cohesiveness and unity of our pluralistic society became fragile.

So, what is wrong with our political system? Indeed, the relationship between economic and political development in developing countries remains one of the most debated topics among political scientists. The riots indicate that high economic growth may not necessarily lead to the strengthening of the nation-building process and state institutionalization. It is therefore important to examine the relationship between the apparent fragility of our national unity and the basic characteristics of political development under the New Order government.

Let us first consider how the concept of political development is generally understood among political scientists. It is commonly agreed that political development is mainly concerned with the process of establishing democratic political institutions through which citizens can influence the making and implementation of government policies for the achievement of common goals.

It is evident that during the New Order government the role of the political elite in the creation of the legislative, political parties, mass organizations and professional organizations has been quite dominant to the effect that the grassroots are left with little opportunity to articulate their interests. There is also a lot of doubt regarding the independence of these institutions.

The government has always attempted to integrate the leadership of the institutions into the existing political regime. Normally the government justifies its attitude through ideology. There is also the rationalization that too much political participation too early would jeopardize political stability. As social and economic upward mobility takes place, political cooperation and patronage become a problem rather than a solution. Since the political system is not well equipped to accommodate the rise of new expectations, interest articulation from below is never effective or at best manipulated by the political elite.

The use of corporatist strategy in dealing with interest articulation from below is known to have been common practice under the New Order government. Within the framework of corporatist strategy, the government establishes patterns of interest representation which link different segments in society and the state.

There is a fundamental difference between corporatism and pluralism as forms of interest intermediation. Corporatism relies heavily on regularized and state-designed channels for political representation which are differentiated on a functional basis. Pluralism constitutes a less structured set of arrangements in which societal groups are organized independently from the state and there is a certain degree of competition among social groups in pursuing their political interests.

Alfred Stepan defines corporatism as "a particular set of policies and institutional arrangements for structuring interest representation. Where such arrangements predominate, the state often charters or even creates interest groups, attempts to regulate their number, and give them the appearance of a quasi- representational monopoly along with special prerogatives" (1978).

Through the corporatist strategy, the government aims to avoid spontaneous and independent activities which might destabilize the political system. According to Malloy, the corporatist strategy tries "...to eliminate spontaneous interest articulation and establish a limited number of authoritatively recognized groups that interact with the government apparatus in defined and regularized ways.

"The recognized groups in this type of regime are organized in vertical functional categories rather than horizontal class categories and are obliged to interact with the state through the designated leaders of authoritatively sanctioned interest associations" (1977). Social groups who are coopted by the government, in turn, enjoy the privilege of being the only legitimized and acknowledged organizational representatives among the same types or groups in society. The political marginalization of society is increasingly aggravated by the fact that national politics is characterized more by competition among the elite scrambling for scarce positional and material rewards.

From the perspective of political sociology, pent up emotions due to social frustrations and political powerlessness can be easily transformed into radical violence. The target of this violence can be the government itself or those political and economic groups whose interests are associated with the ruling elite. The alienation of the grassroots from the decision-making process could nurture the seeds of political extremism and radicalism.

It should be admitted, however, that the problem is more complicated than just a social envy. The fact that social unrest usually also involves some religious antagonism makes an economic reasoning less convincing. If it is true that the main problem is the economic gap between the rich and the poor, why are there not more riots in the cities? A comprehensive understanding of the riots should be found not only in the nature of our political and economic management but also in the perceptions of the different ethnic and religious groups toward one another. Unfortunately, both the government and the public tend to believe that these conflicts are just normal political turbulence prior to the general elections.

It is high time we honestly reassessed the direction of our political development. What should be changed in our political system so that more genuine political participation from below can be channeled through the existing political institutions? What should we do in order to make this nation fit to compete with its neighbors as we enter the third millennium?

The writer is a lecturer in the Faculty of Social and Political Science, at the Catholic University of Parahyangan in Bandung.

Window: The use of corporatist strategy in dealing with interest articulation from below is known to have been common practice under the New Order government. Within the framework of corporatist strategy, the government establishes patterns of interest representation which link different segments in society and the state.