RI democracy in 1994: A tug of war?
RI democracy in 1994: A tug of war?
Debates and discussions about openness have been going on unabated for years. People ask what has happened to democracy in 1994? This is the focus of the following article by noted political observer J. Soedjati Djiwandono.
JAKARTA (JP): As a system of government, democracy aims at the fulfillment of the people's aspirations or demands for equality. This, to put it in simple terms, is what democracy means as an ideal.
There can never be, however, complete fulfillment or realization. There will always be a gap between what is and what should be. The result is a kind of (democratic) society in between. And it is in that sense that democracy is a matter of degree.
Where is Indonesia, or Indonesian democracy, at the end of 1994, along that continuum between what is and what should be? The answer, of course, would depend on the sort of criteria used.
Intrinsic to modern (representative) democracy are, among others, such institutions as regular elections with a free choice of candidates, universal adult suffrage, freedom to organize rival political parties, freedom of speech and of the press, and the preservation of civil liberties and minority rights. Just take your pick! Clearly, the marks for the performance of Indonesian democracy would therefore vary considerably.
For the year 1994, I want to raise the issue of openness as a yardstick. This covers freedom of speech and of the press, and freedom of assembly.
Openness has been encouraged by government leaders over the past few years. It is hard to determine, to be sure, the limit to openness. There is bound to be a difference in perception between the government and the governed. This is to be expected as a matter of course in a democracy. There is bound to be some line, somewhere, if ill-defined, over which neither side shall cross. In a state based on the rule of law, however, it is the law that is to be the last resort in the event of a violation by either side, that is to say, in the event that one side accuses the other of crossing over the line.
Most important is that openness has a democratic value, only if there exists a possibility of, or a mechanism for its (eventual) effect on decision making. Without it, the nonsense of openness, in democratic terms, is clearly indicated in a saying attributed to King Frederick the Great of Prussia of the 18th century, who reportedly claimed his country was democratic in that, in his words, "My people and I have an agreement: they can say what they like, and I can do what I like."
With the government's withdrawal of the publishing licenses of three weekly news magazines in the middle of the year without recourse to the law, the press in effect lost its battle, though not necessarily the war. For a moment, when that happened, I could not help recalling, though perhaps a little unfair, the far more evil program of "let one hundred flowers bloom" launched by Mao Zedong in China in the 1950s with its far more dire consequences for Chinese intellectuals.
From a different perspective, however, it is still hard to see which side is on the ascent. Freedom of assembly has basically remained curtailed. An emerging independent trade union has been banned.
While not (yet) banned, a newly formed independent journalists' association seems at least to continue existing, even if without official recognition. In the meantime, the Indonesian Democratic Party, in some cases even the government party Golkar at the provincial and district levels, and the Nahdlatul Ulama (Moslem Scholars' Association), seem to have succeeded in averting, or at least minimizing, government intervention, whether it be subtle or crude and blatant.
In other words, a tug of war has been going on in Indonesian democracy throughout 1994. It should be a learning process for the nation. It forms part of democratization. Will it continue to characterize democracy in Indonesia in 1995 and beyond?
The writer is a member of board of directors at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies.