Indonesia's nation-building process at the crossroads

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.