RI development 'trilogy' revisited

RI development 'trilogy' revisited

By Arief Budiman

MELBOURNE (JP): Having recently celebrated our 52nd
anniversary of independence, it may be useful to reflect on what
we have achieved or failed to achieve in the nation's pursuit of
a "just and prosperous society".

This reflection, hopefully, will foster awareness
of the most important problems to be solved in the near future.

Taking a look at the most oft-repeated political jargon -- a
"just and prosperous society" -- it is curious that our founding
fathers put "just" before the "prosperous" aspect of society.

Does this mean our forbearers were basically saying that a
just society is more important and even a necessary pre-condition
to create a prosperous society?

Before we answer the above question, let us first discuss the
notion of justice.

To many, a "just society" is seen more as an economic term.
Thus a just society is defined as a society in which all people
enjoy the benefits of economic development equally. The gap
between the rich and the poor is not that dramatic.

However, I would argue that it also includes a political
justice because this notion of economic justice is very tightly
related to political justice as well.

In this sense, political justice means that people share
political power equally. Power is thus concentrated neither in
the hand of an individual nor that of a group in society.

Although economic justice can be separated from political
justice, as mentioned earlier, the two are basically
interrelated.

Without having access to political power, it will be difficult
for the poor to enhance their economic situation. Similarly, by
enhancing their economic condition the poor will increase their
political power.

So now we have three notions for the most important elements
in a development strategy: prosperity and economic and political
justice. Let us elaborate on how these three factors are being
reflected in developing countries, especially Indonesia.

Now we come to our question of whether a just society is the
necessary pre-condition for a prosperous society. There have been
many cases, especially in underdeveloped countries, whereby a
prosperous society (at least as shown by its macroeconomic
indicators) has been successfully created by exploiting the weak
and the poor.

The gross national and domestic products are high although
there is no democracy and economic equality. Rich and super-rich
people exist together with poor people and coupled with an
authoritarian state. Thus, a prosperous society is possible
without the necessity of creating a just society first, both
politically and economically.

However, when we look deeper, we can question the
sustainability of this kind of society, especially the social
sustainability.

We already know the notion of environmental sustainability. We
could create a rich society by exploiting our natural resources.
However, at a certain point in time "nature would strike back"
and this society would suffer a continuous environmental
crisis that would drain all the wealth it has acquired.

Similar to this notion is social sustainability. Economic
growth without equity, coupled with an authoritarian regime, is
possible until one day a social revolution would destroy what the
country had already achieved.

Thus, in a sense, although the creation of a just society,
both economically and politically, could be postponed, it could
not be totally neglected. At one stage in the development process
this factor has to be adequately dealt with.

Let us look at the Southeast Asian region. Some of these
countries have previously succeeded in developing their economies
without providing either economic or political justices.

Fortunately in some of these countries, democratization
occurred before the destructive political cum social
revolutions erupted. And slowly but surely these countries,
equipped with their newly found democracy, have started to
undertake the policy of economic growth with equity.

Thailand and the Philippines are two cases in point, while
Malaysia seems to be cautiously combining both economic growth
and political democracy cum economic equity at the same time.

Singapore places its emphasis more on economic growth and
equity and avoids political democracy. (Lee Kuan-Yew has been
quoted as saying that what the developing world needs to develop
is not democracy but discipline).

People seem to accept that they sacrifice their political
rights for material benefits in Singapore. However, even if it
avoids genuine democracy, the Singapore government has given its
people at least the symbolic processes of democracy (by
undertaking general elections periodically) and a strong
impression that the law is highly respected in the country (by
taking every political case into the court).

Thus, different countries have their own combinations of
emphasis on the ingredients of development, whether it be
economic growth, economic equity or political democracy.

But one thing is certain, they never neglect any of these
three elements for too long in order to safeguard the continuity
of their development processes.

When Thailand under its military regime or the Philippines
under president Ferdinand Marcos neglected the political
democracy aspect of their development (and also the economic
equity to a certain extent), what they got were student protests
and the rise of people power which successfully replaced the then
authoritarian leaders.

Let us now return to Indonesia.

How does this country fare in respect to these three important
elements of development: economic and political justice and
economic prosperity?

The New Order government under President Soeharto seems to be
very much aware of these elements. No later than 1974, after the
Malari student riots, the so-called Development Trilogy was
formulated.

This trilogy precisely addressed these three important
elements of development, namely: economic growth, political
stability and income distribution.

It is clear that the government has nominated economic growth
as its top priority. To achieve this it is stated that political
stability is the necessary pre-condition.

This means that the New Order government feels that democracy
has to be avoided if it creates political instability. Then,
while economic development in a politically stable environment is
being conducted, income distribution is also pursued. This is of
course quite legitimate because every nation has its own unique
combination to implement its strategy.

In terms of economic growth, this government seems to be doing
fine. Since the 1970s, the annual rate of growth of the national
economy is around 7 percent to 8 percent, with the inflation rate
staying at one digit. It is difficult to deny that this country
has been getting richer.

In terms of income distribution we are having some problems.
It seems that the present government is not making its income
distribution policy a priority.

Since the late 1960s, it has been clear that economic growth
is the strategic target of this New Order government and it is
prepared to sacrifice income distribution if necessary.

Income distribution has been, so far, political
rhetoric only. It is not on the real political and economic
agenda. Now and then, the conglomerates are summoned by the
President and asked to give some contribution to the poor. At the
same time, they continue to acquire the economically strategic
land of the poor and constantly deny workers' rights and fair
wages.

Thus, although the poor are getting better as a result of the
successful economic growth, the rich have been getting much
richer. The gap between the rich and the poor has been
dramatically widened.

Also, although the government keeps saying that the number of
people living under the poverty line is diminishing, critical
economists keep on arguing that the criterion used to determine
this poverty line is unrealistically very low and the
number of these people is still very high.

In conclusion, unlike the success of economic growth in the
case of income distribution, the achievement of the New Order
government has been, at least, doubtful.

In this kind of society where a wide gap exists between the
rich and the poor, the only way to rule is to use an
authoritarian hand. It is not a choice, it is a necessity.

Thus, in the Development Trilogy, the component
that is pursued is political stability. Therefore, it is natural
that the military is one of the strongest pillars, together with
the economic technocrats, of the New Order government.

Under the leadership of Gen. Soeharto, the New Order
government has never faced any significant political
challenge. Soeharto has been president for six terms, and is
seeking reelection for his seventh term next year.

It is not surprising that Soeharto, with his 30-year record in
office, has become the second-longest serving president in the
world after Fidel Castro.

However, this tight political control has created some
problems. Together with the failure of income distribution, there
will be a serious problem in the near future if it is not handled
wisely.

Unlike Singapore, where the denial of democracy has been
traded for economic prosperity for the people, Indonesia is
closer to the Philippine model under president Marcos in
which the lack of democracy was coupled with a wide gap between
the rich and poor.

The brutality in recent general election campaigns, the riots
that have preceded it, the increasing political tension after the
elections are all signals that something bigger is in the offing.

These two factors will act as a time-bomb that can explode at
any time if the present government does not act swiftly to
diffuse it.

The important question is: does the New Order government get
the message?

The writer is professor of Indonesian studies at Melbourne
University.