Peaceful essential for democracy

Peaceful essential for democracy

JAKARTA (JP): All but the beneficiaries of the old
authoritarian regime would agree that Indonesia should develop a
more democratic political system. However, given the fact that
freedom of expression has been widely misunderstood as "political
violence", there is an urgency to work out a peaceful transition
to democracy. Indonesians need public order as much as they need
democracy. The use of political violence today has reached a
point of endangering our very existence as a nation.

Democracy, understood as an equal opportunity for all
political groups to participate in the governing process,
necessitates a certain level of public order so that the
essential functions of a political system can operate. For
instance, how can we distribute basic goods in an efficient way
if mass demonstrations block highways? How can foreign investors
be interested in opening business ventures here if, due to an
absence of an effective national leadership, our political system
appears to be going nowhere?

The relationship between economic growth and democracy in
developing countries has become an endless debate among political
scientists. Samuel P. Huntington, for instance, believed in the
1960s that too much and too early political participation for
developing countries was unworkable and destabilizing. Based on
this thesis, many authoritarian leaders in developing countries,
including Soeharto, justified their repressive regimes. Thus,
Huntington's idea can be said to be an endorsement of political
regimentation. Therefore, few, if any, political scientists would
buy his argument.

There is no doubt that today Indonesia is under increasing
pressure to carry out competing and conflicting political and
economic agendas. On one hand Indonesia has to liberalize its
economy following the prescriptions "imposed" by the
International Monetary Fund, but on the other hand it has to
accommodate a growing demand for political reform which has
reached a point of no return.

Indonesia's experiment with a combination of economic growth
and authoritarian politics has failed, as it was bound to. Thus,
Indonesia's challenge now is how to simultaneously carry out
economic liberalization and a peaceful transition to democracy.

So far the process of economic recovery seems to be impeded by
political constraints such as sporadic political violence, the
issue of regional separatism, social anarchy, unresolved
political scandals, corruption, collusion, nepotism, etc. Our
overall situation can best be described as one full of
"transitional incompatibilities". According to Leslie Elliot
Armijo, Thomas J. Biersteker and Abraham F. Lowenthal (1995) this
concept refers to a situation in which both economic
liberalization and democracy turn out to be an obstacle for each
other. In a transitional period an incumbent government (Golkar?)
would tend to promote economic policies with a strong populist
orientation in order to impress voters. However, these policies
go against the spirit of the austerity programs introduced which
emphasize tight government spending for the sake of efficiency.

At the same time, urban members of the lower middle class will
use their newfound freedom of expression to demand an easing of
government structural adjustment policies. Under increasing
societal pressure the propertied class and the ruling elite could
be tempted to endorse state repression under the guise of
political stability.

What steps need to be taken to ensure a peaceful transition to
democracy without hindering economic liberalization? There seems
to be no easy solution but the following steps could be of some
use.

First, the government should publicly announce its political
and economic agendas. These should include clear and consistent
goals. This essential step would make the future of Indonesia's
political and economic systems more certain and predictable.
Government officials should practice what they preach.

The government should not make any promises at all,
eliminating the risk of breaking them.

Many regret the fact that the government's promise to end all
practices of corruption, collusion and nepotism appears to be no
more than a statement of "nice" intention. Real actions speak
louder than words.

Second, the Cabinet should improve its coordination in order
to avoid causing confusion among citizens. Cabinet members should
act in a spirit of unity.

Unfortunately, some ministers have made ridiculous and
unthoughtful statements which only create trouble for other
members of the Cabinet. The present Cabinet members seem to have
different political agendas and are not highly motivated to give
their best performance. It is not easy to explain the motive
behind such an attitude. But it is probably related to the fact
that the present government's chances of staying in power after
the next general election is not that high.

Last but not least, the road to democracy is not an easy one.
It can be a joyful experience though not without its struggles,
its hurts, and its pains. But the nation's founding fathers never
promised any of us a bed of roses. Conflict is an undeniable part
of our pluralistic society.

We need to learn to live with an honest recognition of this
reality. And as time goes by, hopefully our sense of belonging to
the same nation will grow stronger. Let us share this beautiful
dream together instead of destroying ourselves by hating and
killing each other.

The writer is the head of the School of International
Relations, Parahyangan University, Bandung. He is also a
researcher at the university's Parahyangan Center for
International Studies.