Market economics and democracy

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.