No turning back for Indonesian democracy

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.