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.