Indonesia's nation-building process at the crossroads

By Aleksius Jemadu

This is the second of two articles on nation-building.

BANDUNG (JP): Many foreign observers applaud the economic performance of the New Order government over the last three decades. Indonesia is frequently mentioned as a good example for other developing countries in overcoming problems of poverty and rapid population growth. I would argue that the greatest challenge for Indonesia in the future will not come from outside but from within. In other words, in order to be well prepared in dealing with external economic and political challenges, we need to solve some fundamental problems regarding the sustainability or our political system and the cohesiveness of our pluralistic society.

In one way or another the occurrence of the social unrest throughout the country recently has had a tremendous impact upon the prospect of these two critical issues in our political life. With respect to the sustainability of the political system, the main question is whether the existing political format has the capacity to cope with the dynamics of pluralistic interests or our society. Or, is our political system is only effective for the preservation of the political and economic interests of the ruling elite? What kind of political management should we use so that the diversity of Indonesian society might become an asset instead of political liability?

The nature of the above questions clearly indicates the strategic of our political elite. Given the patrimonial characteristic of our society, they are in a good position to exercise their indispensable statesmanship when the whole nation has to decide its future. In this regard, there are several points that need to be considered.

First, the government should be humble enough to admit that the political system is indeed in need of reforms. Primary attention should be given to the transparency of the political system. Reform would be mainly concerned with the openness of the ruling elite toward criticism by different political groups in society.

Unfortunately, the phenomenon of nepotism, which is said to be quite evident in the provisional list of the legislative candidates, could jeopardize the openness of the political system. Moreover, it seems that our bureaucrats are reluctant to correct their superiors even though they know there are obvious irregularities or infractions present. It is almost predictable that all those candidates whose promotions are based on personal or familial relationships will not be able to independently exercise their legislative tasks because they have moral obligations to serve their masters or patrons.

Second, there should be empowerment at the grassroots level by incorporating voluntary organizations into the process of economic development especially in rural areas. Unfortunately, up to now relations between the government and non-governmental organizations are characterized by prejudice and cynicism instead of cooperation and mutual trust. There is visible evidence the two sides need to increase dialog in dealing with development problems. The government is expected to communicate its goodwill to alleviate poverty. The government should convince NGOs that their participation in alleviating poverty is indispensable. Conversely, NGOs need to show their sincerity in being trustworthy partners and try to prove their professionalism in managing development programs. The combination of the potential of the two will certainly maximize the empowerment of the people in the development process.

Third, overcoming the problem of economic inequality caused by the capitalistic nature of our economic development is never easy. Neither is it easy to change the government's policy priorities. However, something must be done to stop the gap between the rich and poor from widening. No matter how serious the government is with its policies to alleviate poverty at the rural level through and "compulsory" contributions from businesspeople, it is obvious that so long as the structural constraints in the process of economic development are not improved, social and economic inequality is here to stay. Problems of inequality cannot be solved by charitable approaches.

The root of social and economic injustices can be found in the approach used in making and implementing development policies. Over the last three decades the government has been determined that big business activities get priority in order to enlarge the "development pie" before it is distributed.

Unfortunately, as the conglomerates grow bigger and bigger, the common people get less opportunity to increase their purchasing power in coping with the ever increasing price of consumer goods. The critical masses are even more frustrated that collusion and nepotism have become normal practices within the bureaucracy. One does not need to be a social psychologist to believe that once there is a trigger then an explosion becomes inevitable.

It follows, quite reasonably, that the problem is not so much with the weakening of nationalism but more with the growing alienation of the people from the prevailing political and economic systems. The people will tend to be apathetic with the political system which, in their view, works against their basic interests.

Fourth, a good and effective function of local government could do a lot in improving the credibility of the central government in the eyes of the people in the regions. So far, administrations at regional level are conditioned to be dependent upon central government policies. They are required to implement those policies in accordance with the wish of the central government.

As a result, local administrations represent the interests of the central government rather than those of local citizens. The dependence of the administrations is partly caused by the fact that the appointment of local leaders (governors and regents) is often executed to fit the political preference of the central elite with the effect that merit considerations are put aside.

Professionalism and democratic process should become primary considerations in appointing local leaders so that are able to develop an effective leadership at the local level and more local aspirations can be communicated into the national political system.

In addition, there is an increasingly convincing argument that after a long period of economic growth, Indonesia needs to enlarge the basis of its economic development. Such an enlargement would be unthinkable without the participation of the government at regional level. It is even argued that the key to our sustained growth is more revolution of power to regional administrations. Otherwise the central government would be overburdened with financial problems and bureaucratic bottlenecks.

Finally, the Indonesian political system should learn how to manage conflict in a pluralistic society. There is a close link between modes of governance and the susceptibility of a pluralistic society to ethnic and religious extremism. We have to admit that ethnic and religious conflicts are real in a changing society such as ours. Government leaders should learn how to manage those conflicts so they do not lead to violence and destructiveness.

Genuine national unity can only be achieved if all social and political groups are willing to live together and have a strong commitment to maintain their sense of togetherness. Therefore, knowing each other is really a must in a pluralistic society. This is the only way to prevent ethnic and religious prejudices. Otherwise, our society will become increasingly vulnerable to political rumors and other irresponsible manipulation of information.

Judging from the frequency and intensity of the recent riots, it is high time the country reflect on the question of whether or not it is on the right path to a prosperous and just society based on Pancasila. Without such reflection our nation will soon appear to be going nowhere. As a result the process of nation- building will be replaced by one of nation-destroying.

There should be an honest reassessment of our social and economic progress so that we know the real agenda to be worked out in the 21st century. It is believed one of the tremendous challenges faced by the post-cold war world is how to manage interval conflicts in many developing countries as part of their nation and state formation.

It would be wise if the government pioneered and opened sincere discussions in which the Army, politicians, intellectuals, students, professionals, religious leaders, trade unions, mass organizations can share their opinions regarding the directions of our political development. As a developing nation we need shared knowledge and understanding about our future. Our ability to compete with other countries in the process of globalization will depend on the cohesiveness of our pluralistic society and the way the political system accommodates the ever changing aspirations of the people. Could this be our common challenge?

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