No turning back for Indonesian democracy

Part 2 of 2

Satish Mishra, Chief Economist, UNSFIR/UNDP, Jakarta

The first phase of Reformasi succeeded in bringing to the surface hidden problems of the New Order. It was a very emotional period of Indonesia's history. It showed that no modern country can accept the rule of a single dictator for ever. People need economic growth. That is why the New Order lasted so long. But economic growth at any price is not enough. People also need freedom. They need to count for something. They need equality of opportunity. They need to feel a sense of self respect. They need to have a sense of control over factors affecting their day to day lives.

Over time, the New Order forgot these essential lessons. At the beginning, it was popular. By the time the end came, it had lost touch with the common people. It lost the capacity to learn from its mistakes. It relied on cronies and sycophants. The economic shock of 1997 was the last straw. The first wave of Reformasi gave it a firm political push. The system collapsed. Indonesia was left with the difficult task of having to rebuild the legitimacy of its political institutions at the same time as dealing with economic crisis.

We should be careful not to blame the first phase of Reformasi for doing things that it was never designed to do. It opened our eyes to hidden weaknesses in our earlier political and economic system. It gave us the chance to begin again. For that we must be thankful.

There is much to learn from the experience of the New Order. There are also important lessons from the first phase of Reformasi. The most important of these is something we all know by our daily experience. The lesson of the first phase of Reformasi is that it is far easier to destroy institutions than to rebuild them.

The first phase of Reformasi released enormous energies and initiatives of the whole Indonesian people. This emotion, however, by itself, could not effectively build a new system of government. For that we need a Second Wave of Reform and Reconstruction which will take the lessons learnt from our own post-independence history, including the first period of Reformasi, and turn this into a well organized development program backed by institutions capable of implementing it.

This task is not easy. There is much public disappointment with this rather emotional first wave of Reformasi, with the uncontrolled and fragmented nature of the new democracy. Looking back it is obvious today that we were all expecting too much from the initial successes of Reformasi. We felt that freedom from dictatorship would be enough to unite the people behind a new set of leaders and a new action plan for the whole country. Yet, we forgot that thirty years of restriction on political activity and on political parties, has made us politically weak and unable to think collectively as a nation.

Remember that most Indonesians had no experience of any other political system than that established under the New Order. By 1998, we all knew that the New Order was finished. But we did not know how to build a new, less corrupt, more socially responsible and free political system. In fact, perhaps the greatest harm done to the country by the New Order system was to destroy our ability to think and act collectively. As a result Indonesia was turned into a country used to following orders rather than taking initiatives, to passively accepting the mistakes of our leaders rather than struggling to change them, to being meek rather than being bold.

Reformasi, in such a debilitated Indonesia, was, of necessity, a period of trial and error. In 1998, Indonesia was like a patient long confined to the political wheel chair, learning to walk again. The will was there. But the muscles had to learn how to stand and put one foot in front of the other. The first wave of Reformasi gave us the will to stand up unaided. The coming Second Wave must train our muscles to walk without stumbling and falling over.

It would also require the emergence of a new kind of political leadership, one driven by vision and direction, a leadership not rooted in family lineage or personal wealth but in public trust and following. Such a leadership would have to combine the nation building visionary qualities of Sukarno, the organizational ability of Soeharto and the democratic spirit characteristic of modern times.

If today's leaders are not to become tomorrow's dictators, new leadership must be situated in the elaborate structure of checks and balances common in modern democracies. Both state and civil society are necessary for such a system to function. Building the new, more balanced, democratic political system is a national enterprise. There are no enemies any more. Nothing is gained by reliving Cold War rivalries or finding easy escape-goats.

In the Indonesia of the future, the temptations of power must be tempered by the counter balancing of different institutions founded on a core belief in some basic, universal set of rights of human, civil and social rights.

All of this requires a great change in mind set. It also demands great humility. It is not easy to admit that despite the best efforts of so many, the New Order structures of government led Indonesia into a blind alley from which there was no escape but to turn back and begin again along a new path.

But that is what happened. It is of little consequence that many still feel a yearning for the old days of order and superficial stability. That is only romanticism of a shallow kind, one that longs for the good old days of one's youth, without learning from the passage of time.

Much has happened in the public domain since the economic crisis began in 1997. Power has become de-concentrated, the Constitution has been amended, regional self-government has become a political reality, open media, new political parties and the growth of civil society organizations have politicized the Indonesian public. There is no way back. We must either consolidate and strengthen the new Indonesian democracy or face a long period of economic stagnation and political instability.

Those Indonesian nationalists of the New Order period who sought to build a more prosperous and stable Indonesia must now work with equal energy to ensure that Indonesia chooses a model of democracy founded on a different political legitimacy, one built on a brand new social contract. A patchwork quilt of institutional remnants from the old regime will not take us anywhere.

This is not the time to dwell on the vices of democracy. Indiscipline, indecision, instability, is often attributed to the advent of democracy in Indonesia. Many have argued that democracy is a western concept and at odds with Indonesian national character and culture. This is too simple a picture. There are many variants of democracy. Indonesia must choose institutional forms suited to its own history. Nevertheless, there are some basic principles common to all democracies, a core set of humanist values, separation of powers, free and fair elections, and the rule of law.

Together these principles have lent democratic political systems a stability and resilience which far exceeds those present in even long standing dictatorships. As far as culture goes, rule by consent is the underlying principle of democratic government. Consensus and gotong royong are essential features of any system of self government. But true consensus cannot be imposed from above. It is the result of open deliberation and an appreciation of different points of view. Reaching a new consensus is an exercise in persuasion. It is not an act of superior authority.

These then are some the key lessons from Indonesia's post- independence history. They should help us build a new Indonesia along the principles of democratic government, social equity and tolerance, economic fairness and collective responsibility. The journey has just begun.

This article does not represent the views of UNSFIR, UNDP or any other UN organization. The views expressed here are strictly personal.