Local elections and the nation-building issue

Local elections and the nation-building issue

Aleksius Jemadu, Bandung

Indonesia is still in need of a satisfactory answer to a
fundamental question regarding the building of a solid nation
within a democratic state. The seemingly stable condition of the
Indonesian state over more than three decades under Soeharto's
New Order regime had turned out to be so fragile that it began to
fall apart once its top leader was removed from power in mid-
1998. The main problem in the past was that the nation did not
find a comfortable home within the framework of an authoritarian
state. As a result, separatist sentiments grew stronger in certain
regions.

Now that Indonesia has gone through the process of further
consolidation of its democracy, people might raise questions
regarding the prospect of nation-building within a democratic
state. Of particular importance is the possible negative impact
of local elections on the prospect of nation-building at the
local level. The progress of democratic consolidation should go
hand in hand with the process of nation-building given the fact
that the character of Indonesian society remains prone to various
forms of communal conflict. On top of that, politik aliran --
the politicization of religious-cultural divisions -- still
dominates the Indonesian polity.

While there is no doubt that direct local election will create
more legitimate leaders, the political nature of its
implementation may lead to the redefinition of political terms of
inclusion and exclusion in society. For instance, the
monopolization of top bureaucratic positions by certain political
groups could create dissatisfaction among other groups who are
deliberately excluded by the ruling power due to their different
ideological orientations.

On top of that, some candidates running for mayor or regent in
certain areas explicitly claim to represent exclusive ideological
orientations and have the agenda of restructuring the society
on the basis of their own ideology.

The raising of the issue of nation-building in the local
elections is not meant to say that there is something wrong with
this democratic process. After all, our amended Constitution and
electoral legislation provide a wide space for an open
competition of political parties with different ideological
orientations. However, the polarizing effect of democratization
has to be tempered by some policy measures at the national
level, which should reflect the essence of the Indonesian unitary
state.

Analyst Joel S. Migdal offers a useful tool of analysis in
understanding the phenomenon of integration and disintegration in a
democratizing society. He draws our attention to the question of how a
society is formed and shaped in the midst of rapidly changing political
circumstances. Migdal further argues that there are two views of society.

First, it can be looked upon as consisting of "a melange of
social organizations" engaging in a competition for social
control and the appropriation of political and economic
resources. This perspective should open our eyes to consider the
possibility that under certain social and political circumstances
communal groups in society may pull in different directions with
the effect that the whole society is confronted with new and
unanticipated patterns of domination and transformation.

In this type of analysis, individuals -- government officials,
military leaders, politicians, local leaders -- and groups --
ethnicity, religious groups, political parties, and militant
organizations -- are seen as agents of a power struggle in
"multiple arenas of domination and opposition".

The second view of society focuses on the notion of society as
"the outermost structure". Instead of looking at the diversity of
its elements, here we emphasize the totality or integration of a
society. Unfortunately, the Indonesian political leaders tend to
romanticize the glorious past of the nation. They often refer to
the existence of some sort of political entity in the pre-
independence era. Due to the rapid change of our political system
today, however, the issue of national integration cannot be taken
for granted.

Another analyst Benedict Anderson, meanwhile, is right when he
argues that a nation is a common project for the present and the
future. In other words, nation-building is a never-ending
process.

The polarizing effect of our local elections should not deter
us from finding some acceptable mechanisms in order to strengthen
the congruence between democratization and the common project of
nation-building. A good point to start is the
institutionalization of the principle of democratic citizenship
in our legislation.

Democratization is not only about the sovereignty of popular
votes but it is also concerned with the acknowledgement of
political equality of the citizens regardless of their
ethnic, religious and linguistic backgrounds.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of local regulations in certain
regions which tend to discriminate the people on the basis of
their ideological backgrounds. The victims of this discrimination
sometimes find it difficult to channel their complaints as the
policy issues they raise fall into the exclusive competence of
the local government. For instance, discriminatory policies
produced by the regional education service (dinas pendidikan)
cannot be annulled by higher authorities.

Let us just hope that the current euphoria of local elections
will not lead to the emergence of new ideological terms of
inclusion and exclusion in society as such situation may weaken
the very foundation of our national unity.

Aleksius Jemadu is head of the Department of International
Relations at Parahyangan Catholic University, Bandung.