Secession: RI's democracy dilemma

By Sidhesh Kaul

JAKARTA (JP): The post-Soeharto era has seen Indonesia engulfed in a spate of separatist struggles. The recent success of the Timor referendum has given fresh impetus to the fires of secessionist movements which continue to burn bright in Aceh, Maluku and Irian Jaya.

The fires are beyond concessions and compromises and reason seems to have fled to more nourishing climes. The secession debate has provoked nationalists and democrats alike to endorse the use of repressive force as a means of preserving territorial and national integrity and unity.

But it appears that every bullet that pierces a secessionist's heart steels the resolve of a thousand others. All this at a time when the government is desperately trying to resuscitate its' flagging economy as well as maintain political stability, in the face of severe international pressure which expects President Wahid's government to walk the economic-political-human rights tightrope with the agility of a seasoned acrobat.

In a democratic form of government it is impossible to follow the Utopian-like restrictive tenets of Aristotelian polity. Democracy, whilst bolstering the tyranny of the majority, overlooks the aspirations of the minority, and when the state adopts a step-motherly attitude toward the minorities it unwittingly provides the impetus for secessionism.

The independence struggle united Indonesia against a common enemy -- the colonizers -- but with the advent of the post- independence era and the petering away of internal threats, the government had the golden opportunity of uniting free Indonesia against a common enemy -- poverty and backwardness.

Instead, the Indonesian government chased shadows on the wall and fought battles against enemies, both real and imagined, as a means of building a stranglehold on Indonesia's power structures with the help of the military. The direct consequence of this approach has been a skewed development approach that largely ignored the outer islands.

During the three decades of the New Order rule, the Java- centric government's lop-sided development program largely ignored the aspirations of the far-flung regions and these policies, and in turn, nurtured a deep-seated resentment for the central government.

Promises of autonomy, devolvement of power and sharing of revenues have been made in the past as well but never acted upon -- the long history of apathy of the Java-centric government has nurtured a feeling of betrayal.

This resentment, whilst the New Order was still in power, was carefully lidded by repressive means. With the demise of the New Order this resentment has become more vociferous and unfortunately, violent.

For Indonesian democrats, addressing this historical baggage of grievances poses another dilemma. Make amends in the developmental policies for the outer regions and risk the wrath of the ruling majority, or preserve the status quo and risk international condemnation.

Democracy propagates the tyranny of the majority and the question of accommodating the demands and aspirations of every struggling minority plagues every existing democracy in existence and this highlights another aspect of the dilemma.

In every society there will always be a small group of people who perceive themselves as different. The "differences", in addition to historical and other socio-cultural reasons, being aggravated by the skewed attention of the state and which, in turn, fuels separatism.

When should a government sit up and take notice before this "feeling" crosses the threshold of civility?

Should the government wait for bomb blasts and destruction as an effective signal of dissatisfaction before any measures are undertaken?

Secession defies democracy in many aspects and poses a dilemma for the proponents of Indonesia's fledgling democracy. The confusion arises, mainly from the conflict between the need to preserve territorial integrity and unity and the need to address the grievances of separatist elements, without having to resort to the persuasive powers of brutal and violent repression.

The freedom to secede, by bloodshed or by more peaceful means, is not acceptable within the theoretical constructs of a democratic form of government.

In a democracy the basic assumption that the "demos", or the decision making unit, remain the same between decisions, does not theoretically allow the alteration of this unit, and hence the conclusion that secession (which is an act of altering the "demos") is prohibited.

Nationalists would tend to agree with this theoretical construct in the same vein as did President Abraham Lincoln when he brushed aside secessionist struggles by saying that: "It presents the question, whether discontented individuals, too few in numbers to control administration ... can always ... break up their government, and thus practically put an end to free government upon the earth."

Over the ages nationalists and democrats have conveniently hidden behind the sacred veil of this anti-secessionist theoretical construct and denied struggling peoples the right to self-determination.

Pacifism and democracy work only in the case of smaller nations, with more or less homogeneous peoples, but not for territorially larger democracies with a diverse ethnicity and non-homogeneous populations such as Indonesia.

In a large and diverse democracy such as Indonesia's, unless there are effective pressure relief valves, the complaints of the minority are typically treated as whispers in the wind.

Regional autonomy is only part of the solution. The process of devolvement of power has to go hand in hand with reforms in the electoral process that would give direct power to the people.

In the absence of reforms in the electoral process, "regional autonomy" overtures are going to be perceived as another Java- centric ploy towards empty mollification -- all style and no substance.

The core of the issue is that pro-democracy proponents are allergic to secessionism and this stems more from the fear of the effect rather than the act itself.

A secessionist struggle does not overthrow the existing government but instead only carves a territory for itself. This is another aspect of the dilemma. Democracy is a system that encourages autonomy for individuals and groups, as well as embracing change as a vibrant media for actualization and empowerment.

But on the other hand, democracy abhors secession. If secession is viewed stoically as simply an innovative measure for "new state" creation then the logical conclusion is that democracy abhors innovation as well.

The conspiracy that has been unwittingly hatched by willing partners -- democracy and nationalism -- has generated a certain acceptable level of status quo in the political order.

The ensuing climate does not favor any change and secession, as a direct consequence, can hence only be a child of violence.

But principally we all know that neither innovation (an essential ingredient for civilizations to evolve) or "new states" are bad.

The natural abhorrence to secessionism can only be attributed to deeply embedded primordial fears of loss of territory and the impact that a "break-away" nation would have on the status quo. The very action of prohibiting secessionism just because it is not compatible with the best traditions of western liberal democratic norms would not pass the ordinary test of moral legitimacy.

The assumption that society is a static animal must be challenged and the old molds of decaying political principles would have to be reassessed and, if need be, cast away.

Innovation must be embraced and Indonesia must tread the path of selfless pacifism and mutual co-existence. This is the path of the millennium and Indonesia has a golden opportunity to lead the way, statesmanlike, and occupy the moral high ground.

From the tenor and the passion of the several secessionist movements it is becoming increasingly clear that the inevitable will soon follow.

The painful lessons from Timor and the aftermath of the world's scorn and consternation are still fresh in the memory. The time for myopic polemics and dogmatism is long past and the moment for a fresh and rejuvenating introspection draws near.

The author is a commentator on regional economic and political issues based in Jakarta.