Strong government versus strong civil society

Endy M. Bayuni Cambridge, Massachusetts

What kind of a government does Indonesia need today? Consequently, what kind of a leader should we be looking for?

With Indonesia's first direct presidential election fast approaching, we are now hearing a growing call for strong government: For most people, this essentially means nothing less than putting a strong and firm leader in charge.

So pervasive seems to be the call for strong government today that even some leaders of civil society have joined in the chorus, when probably they should be the last persons to be making such a call.

Our own 32 years of living under Soeharto's tyranny, and the experience of other countries under a dictatorship like Iraq under Saddam Hussein, show that strong government always came at the expense of civil society. In Indonesia's case, Soeharto marginalized civil society; in Iraq, Saddam almost decimated it.

In a nation-state, the government and civil society both have a designated role to play, but more often than not, even in the most developed democracies, the delineation between the affairs of government and of civil society is not clear. In many areas, they often have overlapping authority, such that they become competitors. Strong government is therefore most likely to come at the expense of civil society.

You cannot have strong government and strong civil society at the same time: It is either one or the other. You can, however, have weak government and weak civil society, which is one of the symptoms of a failing state.

Going by Indonesia's own experience, lack of democratic checks and balances and of democratic accountability, the absence of a free and independent media, unchecked human rights abuses and massive corruption -- while the nation was enjoying a period of political stability and economic growth -- were symptoms of a nation then that had strong government and weak civil society.

Soeharto's government was effective and efficient in many respects -- although it delivered the economic goods in terms of growth, income and jobs. However, these came at the expense of marginalized civil society, individual liberty and democracy.

While there may be some disagreement about what or who is meant by a "strong and firm" leader, the source of that demand today can be traced to people's growing disenchantment at President Megawati Soekarnoputri, and at her failure to live up to their expectations. Because of her poor performance these last three years, she has come to symbolize a "weak and ineffective" leader, and her administration weak government.

The fight against corruption, for example, is considered one of the gravest problems facing any elected president in the post- Soeharto era. Yet, this is one area where Megawati failed miserably: Corruption today is even more widespread and pervasive than it was under Soeharto. And then there are the continuing troubles with armed insurgencies in Aceh and Papua, and endless communal conflicts in Maluku and the Central Sulawesi regency of Poso. They suggest a government -- and a president -- that have failed to come to grips with the problems. Throw in rising crime, terrorism and the stalled or muddling economy for good measure, and the picture of a weak and failing state is complete.

A weak or failing government would have offered an opportunity for civil society to rise up and fill the vacuum. These last six years we have seen glimpses of this non-government sector meeting the challenges, although perhaps not as often as we would have liked.

One such occasion came when Jakarta was struck by a massive flood in February 2002. Government services effectively broke down in many parts of the city. Who rose to the occasion then? Voluntary organizations, the basis of civil society.

They were the ones that went around rescuing people stranded in their houses in the middle of massive pools of water. They were the neighborhood women who organized public kitchens to feed flood victims. They were the ones that went around collecting donations, including dry clothes and foodstuffs, from their communities.

They did this spontaneously, helped by innovative local radio stations in mobilizing the community to come out and lend a hand. The Jakarta administration was totally paralyzed, and only joined in the effort a day or two later.

We have seen many other similar, community-based efforts, mobilized by voluntary organizations, in the wake of the most severe economic crisis to hit Indonesia, in 1998. The worst crisis always brought out the best in us. These efforts were launched by new organizations that emerged during these last six years, not only in response to crisis situations and government failures, but also to take advantage of greater freedom in the post-Soeharto era. And they are strengthening our civil society.

In conflict zones like Maluku, some mediation efforts were launched by community-based organizations that were working at the grassroots level and away from the glare of media publicity. In the fight against corruption, some watchdog organizations are collecting the evidence that should really be the job of the police and government prosecutors. In Bali, in the wake of the devastating terrorist attack in October 2002, community-based organizations are helping local people deal with post-traumatic stress disorder.

These are just some of the many examples of the work of voluntary organizations that should give us hope for our civil society, not only to fill the vacuum left by the government, but also to take back some of the work that belongs to it -- work that had been taken over by a government that thought it could do everything by itself.

Our civil society still has a long way to go, but if we believe that this is the way forward, then we should seriously challenge the popular wisdom of having a strong government and strong president.

This being an election year, Megawati's failings naturally became easy prey for her challengers to exploit. It is no wonder that her two most serious challengers both had military backgrounds. Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Wiranto take many people back to the golden years of Soeharto, the era of strong government and economic prosperity. It matters not to these people that his development policies bred corruption and that the economic goods were delivered at the expense of freedom.

Before the nation hands the presidency back to a military figure, it is probably worth asking whether this is really what Indonesia needs. If either is elected, he would take this as a mandate from the people for strong government. He would probably be more efficient in getting things done, but one shudders to think what sacrifices society would have to make. In all likelihood, we would have to sacrifice our freedom. Even worse for the nation, he would probably stifle the growth of civil society.

Indonesia today does not need strong government or a strong president. Neither does it need ineffective leadership, which the incumbent president, sadly, has come to symbolize.

The country needs a democratically elected and credible government, which is not the same as strong and firm government. Consequently, the country needs a leader who has the right credentials and credibility. Most of all, Indonesia needs a leader who knows the limits of what the government is capable of doing, and thus knows when to stop and allow civil society to develop and contribute its share.

The writer, Deputy Chief Editor of The Jakarta Post, is currently studying at Harvard University under fellowships provided by the Nieman Foundation, the Ford Foundation and the Asia Foundation.