Strong government vs. strong civil society

Strong government vs. 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.