Living the rest of the dream: From slave to tyrant

Meidyatama Suryodiningrat, Jakarta

Dreams are wonderful things. They give hope and purpose; ambition and drive. But what happens when the dream comes true. This is the part in the movies when the closing credits start to roll. Nobody wants to contemplate what comes next. Most suspend reality to avoid possible nightmares by becoming entranced in yet another dreamscape.

But this is reality. Such luxuries are not affordable, least of all in the cacophony of a true democracy. Starting today, 220 million Indonesians are living the rest of the dream.

Not withstanding certain caveats, all that was sought has come true -- the constitutional amendments, a fully elected legislature and a president chosen directly by voters. In short, Indonesia has realized its vision of a nation ruled by the people.

Herein lies the paradox, and President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono's biggest challenge.

Political scientists from Gunnar Myrdal and Clifford Geertz to Amartya Sen have argued that there is a link between democracy and development. Against our better judgment, the fact remains that most great (read: "large") democracies -- with the obvious exception of the United States -- especially those that emerged after the second wave have either been left to languor in economic lethargy or wither into autocracy.

The debate over whether a nation is "fit for democracy" or "made fit through democracy" continues. Reality seems to favor the former rather than the latter thesis. Increasingly, we hear of respected technocrats -- not naive activists -- adopting the vocabulary of a strong government.

The lesson of the Indonesia miracle under Soeharto is that one needs compelling power, not just authority, to drive the structural changes needed. A vibrant democracy, in many respects, only "complicates" the needed drive to implement changes. Soeharto's authoritarianism was more conducive to propelling development policies, irrespective of its bitter nature.

Grassroots democracy, as pretty as it sounds, in the immediate future is more of a headache than an asset. Regional autonomy, which has created local pandemonium, is not conducive to the affirmative course Susilo needs to pursue. The recalcitrant, rent-seeking mindset of local authorities will worsen before it gets better.

It is a wonderful poster slogan to say that in 2005 Indonesia will have direct elections at the local level. But the immediate repercussions of some 250 local elections can only mean further anarchy and investor confusion -- as it will surely be every candidate, official and businessman for himself.

This was a headache Soeharto never imagined.

Faced with this dilemma, leaders can either remain daftly idealistic and sink along with economy, or compromise one's own democratic penchant in the name of development.

Another facet bringing stress to this conundrum is the public's strong expectations towards allusions of democratic life -- the fallacy that democracy promises prosperity. Democracy certainly makes for a vibrant civil society, and hopefully greater enterprise, but it is closer to social well-being than economic welfare.

A succession of let-downs will ultimately jade a people who revert back to adoring the simplicity of being told what to do, rather than having to choose what to do.

In other words, people are reduced to political passivity and personal egoism as they begin to love the rules that repress their ability to think. Just like the slave in Plato's cave who was enamored by oppression -- the dark certainty of the cave and security of the chains -- he became too afraid to walk out to face the unforgiving maze that is freedom.

During those rare occurrences when one does venture out, the outcome, after brief timidity, is usually indulgences of power.

Indonesia needs to educate its peoples in the science of democracy. It needs to both temper expectations of what democracy can deliver (in the short term), while at the same time making it more relevant to the people. Investment in productive development cannot be underscored enough. Only through spending in education, health and welfare can we ensure that democracy means something.

More importantly, this "education" process creates informed citizens, who will eventually place caveats on ruling authorities and even themselves.

One of Asia's greatest democrats, Filipino Jose Rizal, said that without civic education "the slaves of today" would merely become "the tyrants of tomorrow".

Developing this civic competence is pivotal if democracy is too work. Unfortunately, it will take time, commitment and real investment which starts today if we are to develop accountable attitudes and intuition for critical political aptitude.

There is no guarantee the new president will not employ despotic measures to drive his "development" policies forward. Prevailing realities probably necessitate such tendencies. Indonesia is doomed to perpetuate the cycle of serial tyrants, if it fails to start building the civic competence of its people.