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.