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.