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.