More democratic but poorer

The Human Development Report 2002 which was published last week takes us back to the classic debate of democracy versus prosperity. One would be tempted to conclude from the report that democracy does not always guarantee prosperity. In some cases, democracy may even seem to be detrimental to prosperity.

Going through the rankings in the report's Human Development Index, we find countries that are more democratic are not necessarily more prosperous; and that even in many cases, countries governed by repressive regimes are faring better.

The index for the first time incorporates democracy into the calculations of how a country is faring in the human development index. After incorporating social elements, such as education and health, as well as the traditional measurement of per capita income in defining human progress since its report in 1990, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) expanded the concept to include elements that reflect democracy, such as free speech and free press, in this year's report.

As hard as the report tries to argue that there is really no trade-off between democracy and prosperity, the fact remains that many developing countries are facing this dilemma. Indonesia, as an emerging, albeit struggling, democracy, makes a compelling study on whether democracy and prosperity clash with or complement each other.

Indonesia is ranked 110th in the human development index, which uses data that was available up until 2000. We have hardly budged from our 1995 rank, in spite of the downfall of one of the world's most repressive tyrants in 1998 and the winds of freedom that came this way. But at the same time, economically, we are worse off now than we were in 1997.

The reason for Indonesia's ranking remaining unchanged could probably be explained by the fact that the freedoms it gained in 1998 were canceled out by the plunge in prosperity resulting from the economic crisis. But looking at the index, we find many countries that are less democratic yet not necessarily more prosperous that are rated higher, with Vietnam at 109th, and China at 96th.

We could argue endlessly, as no doubt some scholars would, about the validity of the UNDP ranking system, and whether it is right to place Indonesia below Vietnam and China. But this does not negate the fact that a new democratic Indonesia is still economically much worse off than it was five years ago.

The saddest part of the story is that we still do not see any real signs of the economy making significant recovery any time soon. With the political elite still locked in power struggles, many people do not expect to see real economic progress before the next elections in 2004. Even that may sound optimistic, because it assumes that the elections would settle the infighting among our political elite, once and for all.

Yet after five years of reformasi, it is only right that people now are starting to ask for their share of the dividends. After making the economic sacrifices, they have every right to demand something in return. While they are not asking for a complete return to the pre-crisis level, they should at least be given an advance, or some kind of downpayment, or at least a signal that things will get better.

It is an illusion to suggest that the economic welfare of the majority of the people in this country has returned to the 1997 level. Some sections of society may have enjoyed progress, but the fact remains that the real purchasing power of the income of the average Indonesian is not anywhere near where it was five years ago. Millions of children remain out of school and many poor people have even less access to health treatment because they are unable to afford the soaring costs. And there are many millions more, displaced by the crisis, who are still out of work.

If more and more people are now longing for the "good old days of Soeharto", that is because, for them reformasi has been nothing but bad news. Unfortunately, many politicians, with an eye on consolidating their grip on power which they won after reformasi, are singing the same tune. They too are arguing for curtailment of freedom in the name of stability and economic growth, Witness President Megawati Soekarnoputri's remarks last week questioning the "quality of freedom" that the Indonesian press is enjoying.

In the case of Indonesia, the jury is still out on whether prosperity and democracy can go hand in hand, or whether you can only have one but not the other. Civil society's current leaders, which have been the driving force behind reformasi, have a lot to answer for, especially regarding the failure of our democracy to bring not only the promised prosperity, but the people's basic economic entitlements. At this stage, many poor people are not even dreaming of prosperity, they just want jobs and the ability to put food on their table, to send their children to school and to have access to inexpensive health care. Is that asking too much from a democracy?