Structural impediments facing the new president

Structural impediments facing the new president

Meidyatama Suryodiningrat, Jakarta

After more than six years of disorder in the post-Soeharto
era, many are once again erroneously looking at institutional
changes and the introduction of a more democratic electoral
system as a quick fix to Indonesia's chaotic transformation.

Instead of positioning this process as a means to a more
justifiable end, the elections are being perceived as ends in
themselves. That the final product -- a democratically elected
president -- is the cure for all that has gone amiss since the
start of the reform movement.

Javanese folklore is seeped in the myth of a benevolent savior
(Ratu Adil): A leader of divine character sent by providence to
confer justice and glory on the nation. Many cling to this
illusion, giving rise to personality cults that eventually lead
to demagogy and authoritarianism.

Indonesia's history has twice, in the form of the Sukarno and
Soeharto regimes, provided ample evidence that the birth of a new
(self-) righteous regime/leader is more of a placebo than a
panacea for democracy's ills.

People ignore the reality that the political process is also
defined by innate circumstances beyond the control of one person
(the president). The idealism and benevolence of a president
alone are insufficient to ensure the shaping of a better society
if structural obstacles are not addressed.

Despite the new system that has been installed, Indonesia is
brimming with forces that work to negate the expedition of a
smooth democratic transition. Consequently, our expectations that
the new president can induce seismic changes should be tempered
proportionally to the gravity of the obstacles that lie before
us.

Paramount among the forces at work in a country undergoing
transition is the level of economic growth. Transformation toward
democracy, by its very nature, implies fundamental social and
economic change. Economic growth is the decisive factor in not
only determining whether a nation succeeds in crossing the
systemic divide to become a democratic state, but how well the
transition permeates down through society.

More often than not, societal changes are propelled by an
established middle class. This is why sound economic growth is
vital, since only under conditions of relative economic
prosperity will a society have a politically aware middle class
that seeks to influence the political dynamics. Under these
conditions, transitions tend to be more meaningful since they are
built upon fundamental socio-economic change rather than short-
term political gains.

Under situations where economic growth is less encouraging,
the democratic transition tends to be shallower as many changes
tend to be essentially cosmetic in nature. There is little
underlying change as transformations are driven more by seasonal
discontent toward a decaying regime rather than a new equation in
the national polity.

It is too early to tell if Indonesia will undergo a deep or
shallow democratic transition. But the recent annual average of
three to four percent growth, driven by consumer spending, is
simply not enough. If the depressed economic outlook persists,
the fallout could be disastrous for democratic consolidation.

"Democracy" itself could eventually be blamed for the economic
downturn. Transition fatigue would quickly set in as the public
becomes apprehensive about further change.

In such a situation, the growing sense of apathy would be
compounded by a perception that democracy has become irrelevant
to the public. The politicking of the elites, which has little if
anything to do with improving public welfare, would then create a
disconnection between democratic politics and public policy.
Eventually, democracy would become a mere slogan and come to be
seen as ineffective as regards furthering the aspirations of the
public.

Another significant obstacle hindering democratic
consolidation is the continued practice of political patronage.
In a true democracy, power is regulated, distributed and
transferred via established institutional means, e.g., democratic
elections. But not so in Indonesia where the patronage system
perpetuates an asymmetrical generation of power in which
authority is not acquired through formal processes.

Abdurrahman Wahid's tenure as president amply demonstrated
this inherent frailty in the Indonesian political system. Despite
being handed the presidency by the People's Consultative
Assembly, he was denied the intrinsic powers associated with the
office. In the end, he was forced to compromise in order to build
a new power base within the confines of the Presidential Palace.

The key driver in this predicament is the innate strength of
"embedded elites" vis-a-vis the "free floating elites". The
levers of change remain in the hands of those from the former
category.

Embedded elites are individuals and organizations who are
connected to the previous regime. While they may have been
disgraced and dealt political blows during the preliminary phase
of regime change, their networks and resources allow them to
weather the initial storm and quickly regain their privileged
roles in high politics. The Golkar Party, Gen. (ret.) Wiranto and
other individuals linked to the New Order are examples of how
embedded elites continue to shine in the political firmament.

Unfortunately, pro-democracy advocates, like Amien Rais,
Nurcholish Madjid and Sjahrir, while churning out attractive
rhetoric really have little impact when it comes to real politik.
These free-floating elites neither have the savvy nor the
constituencies to hold sway in the practical world.

In the end, they resort to jargonistic platforms and abstract
slogans about democracy that are unappealing to the public.

While the role of the free-floating elites is symbolically
significant, it is the embedded ones that we ultimately have to
turn to in order to induce true change. Given the sluggish rate
of economic growth, we cannot expect change to emerge from the
middle class.

Profound democratic change in Indonesia will ultimately be
achieved only by acquiring the support and commitment of the
embedded elites to the slow process of reestablishing the link
between democratic politics and policy-making.

In many respects, this process has already begun via
constitutional changes and the introduction of a new electoral
system.

However, the price that has had to be paid is that in present
day Indonesian politics, the vanguard of the new process still
consists of organizations and individuals whose histories can be
traced back to the past regime. But at the very least, they now
have to pay some heed to the voice of the people.

Meidyatama Suryodiningrat is a staff writer for The Jakarta
Post.