Market economics and democracy

By Makmur Keliat

The following article is the second of two articles on the relations between market economy and democratization.

SURABAYA (JP): There is no doubt that democracy is a contested concept since all regimes usually claim to have governed through the principles of democracy.

For this simple reason it is necessary to define what we precisely mean by democracy. Democracy literally means rule by the people and the rule should rely on and respect for the majority's will of the population.

In conventional terms holding regular general election through multi party political system is a yardstick for the judgment of country's respect for the majority's will.

If one follows this conventional wisdom it is right to point out that the New Order regime that has governed Indonesia for more than 30 years is committed to the principles of democracy. It is an undisputed fact that the regime has regularly held general election in every five year and three political parties have stood for the election.

However, respect for principles of democracy is not merely judged from a question of whether a particular government is committed to holding regular general election and adopting multi party political system.

It is a widespread belief that other prerequisites should come along with and must be integral part of the formal requirement, The most important being how the process of general election is held and how political rights such as freedom of expression are ensured.

No country can claim to respect democracy unless these prerequisites are respected. As the following facts shows, it is unjustifiable to say that the New Order regime has governed through principles of democracy.

First, the government has imposed floating concept meaning that political parties, PDI and PPP (United Development Party) are not permitted to establish their branch office below the district level.

At the same, however, the ruling Golkar political grouping, has the back-up of the bureaucracy up to the village level.

As widely known, Golkar members have mainly come from three channels namely A (ABRI, the Indonesian Armed Forces), B (Bureaucracy) and G (Golkar) channel.

Second, the government has discretionary power to revoke the publishing license of newspaper and magazine. In June 1994, for instance, the government closed down Tempo magazine, and two other weeklies, DeTik and Forum.

Third, the government is empowered to decide the legality of political meeting.

Fourth, fraud is believed to have often happened when the counting day of vote was held in the past elections.

Fifth, members of the House of Representative have great limitation insofar as the freedom of expression is concerned.

It is not uncommon to see that the vocal members of parliament were dismissed because of their criticism against the government as in the case of Bambang Warih from Golkar and Sri Bintang Pamungkas from PPP last year.

Taking all these facts into consideration it is not an exaggeration to say that an authoritarian political system remains a rule in Indonesia albeit there have been new political developments.

No single explanation has emerged to clarify the causes of undemocratic nature of the Indonesian present government.

In general there are two main approaches, one is the approach that puts particular emphasis on cultural factor and another one is the approach that is focused on structural condition.

According to the first view, Indonesian value system is in contravention of cultural values underpinning the earlier process of democratization in industrialized countries.

It has been pointed out that while Indonesian society considers the spirit of group and consensus far more important than that of individualist and conflict, the developed and industrialized society is the reverse.

A variety of this view holds that achieving political stability the introduction of liberal democracy to Indonesian society, marked by diversity in culture, religion and ethnicity, is unfit for the acceleration of economic development.

On the other hand, the approach emphasizing on structural factors has argued that dependent capitalism that characterizes Indonesian development cannot coexist with liberal democratic system. Particularly for those who adopt socialists ideas, they have pointed out that this model of development has necessitated the New Order government to create an authoritarian political system.

Regardless of their different viewpoint, however, it is noteworthy that the two approaches have arrived at the same conclusion. Both have concluded that it is the state or bureaucracy that plays a dominant role in Indonesian politics.

Unlike in developed countries, in the case of Indonesia, political parties and interest groups do not possess significant role in politics and in consequence parliament is not the arena where political decision is made.

This in turn has brought about one important consequence in the discussion on the prospect of democratization in Indonesia.

It seems that democratization would take place if there is a changing relationship between state and society. It could be argued that democratization is proceeding if the foundation of state power is shifting or changing from few dominant elite controlling bureaucracy to various popular forces.

The most common cause of democratization in developing countries is popular discontent with authoritarian regimes. However, there has been no a clear-cut pattern in the relationship between economic performance and popular rejection against the authoritarian regime. There have been popular rejections of regimes with a record economic failure, moderate, success and impressive growth.

For Indonesia, economic success could be both a cause of an obstacle to democratization. Some Indonesian observers have stated that the success of Indonesian economy would remove the final rationale for authoritarian rule due to the fact that the impressive economic growth has generated larger number of middle class necessary for sustainable democratic regime.

On the other hand, however, there are those who insist that the economic success justifies and strengthens the argument against democratization. They have harbored misgivings that democratization would bring back the country into the economic stagnation.

Without playing down the significance of this debate, it is important to note that there has been little correlation between democracy and economic performance for developing countries. A recent study has proved that both democratic and authoritarian regime indeed could generate impressive and poor economic growth.

From a historical view point, the transition to democratic forms of government in Western Europe was not merely ignited by middle class. In fact, the struggle against absolutist state also owed something to political role played by labors and peasants.

Both of them along with bourgoise went hand in hand to initiate the struggle. In the end this process resulted in the possibility of separation and diffusion of economic and political power, the rule of law and political rights.

Ruling groups subsequently could agree with the political sovereignty of the people within strategy of concessions and cooperation in the face of growing popular demands, especially from the rapidly expanding labor movements.

Meanwhile, political parties became the important actors and usually rooted in class-based interest groups such as trade unions, or employers's association.

These factors, called structural factors, caused popular movements accepted constitutionalism.

In this context, the problem of democratization in developing countries is that while people in large parts of the early industrialize Western Europe were integrated into the political arena through the non-personalized state bureaucracies, mass parties and unions, citizens of developing countries by contrast are incorporated through personalized politics in societies.

Considering this historical perspective, it could be stated that the prospect of democratization in Indonesia to some extent would be determined by how Indonesian labor organizes, aspires and channels their demands and discontents.

Accordingly, if labor is still alienated from aligning with political parties and their interests are neglected, then any discussion on the issue of democratization or political openness would be on paper only. If any it would be merely political jargon for short term political interest.

The writer is a teacher at the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Airlangga University, Surabaya.