The debate on democratization

The debate on democratization

Eric Hiariej, Yogyakarta

The fall of Soeharto has been followed by debate on the future
of democratization in Indonesia. Many Indonesians believe that
Soeharto's fall has created chances for the establishment of
democratic institutions. Two factors lie behind this optimistic
view.

First, it is argued that the lack of democratic rules and
norms originates in the superiority of the executive branch (that
is, President Soeharto). His fall will, consequently, enable the
formation of basic democratic procedures such as the separation
of powers and the check-and-balance mechanism.

In turn, developing these procedures requires further
political reform in areas such as the party system and the
electoral system.

Second, the financial crisis has forced the new government to
pursue market reform. At the center of this reform is the
formation of good governance that is compatible with the
operation of a market economy. Good governance presupposes
bureaucratic transparency and accountability and the recognition
of the rule of law that lies at the heart of democratic norms and
values.

In arguing along these lines, this view defines democracy as a
political method for choosing political leadership in which the
people are given a chance to elect their choice of the candidates
who are competing for their votes. Although between elections,
decisions are mainly made by politicians, the people have a
chance to replace their officials in the next election.

In this sense, democratization implies the formation of
specific rules and institution that are compatible with the
political method for selecting political leaders. This includes
regular elections, secret ballots, universal suffrage and
partisan competition as well as legislative sovereignty,
executive accountability and judicial review.

Democratization refers to the implementation of these rules
and procedures in undemocratic institutions and for individuals
and groups that were previously governed under undemocratic
norms. This procedural democracy also emphasizes the
responsiveness of the government to the preferences of its
people.

The optimistic view tends also to believe that the neo-liberal
orthodoxies inherent in the economic reform adopted by the new
government are compatible with the formation of democratic
procedures. This belief is rooted in the argument that only a
capitalist system can provide necessary condition for civil
liberties and political rights.

It is assumed that freedom is the ultimate end of humankind
and individuals are the only social and political entity. The
basic problem of modern society is how to coordinate social
activities without harming individual freedom. It seems that a
free-market system is the only satisfactory mechanism for
determining collective decision-making on an individual basis.

This mechanism can ensure the coordination of the decisions
without applying absolute authority in which everyone is allowed
to pursue their private ends with the resources at their
disposal. However, the free market can only function as long as
law and order are maintained to prevent physical coercion of one
individual by another and to prevent the practice of monopoly
that inhibits individual freedom. It is in this context that the
market promotes political freedom.

First, the market mechanism that assumes voluntary cooperation
on an individual basis requires the absence of coercion of people
by their fellow humans, a majority or government. In turn, the
absence of coercion requires the elimination of concentration of
power and the distribution of political authority.

Second, the market mechanism minimizes government
participation in economic and social activities. It is assumed
that government intervention tends to be harmful to individual
freedom because it enforces substantial conformity and tends to
increase chances for power concentration. By removing social and
economic activities from the control of the government, the free-
market system eliminates the sources of coercive power and
concentration of power as well as enabling non-political power to
check political authority.

On the other hand, Soeharto's power was based on political
support, at least from the ruling coalition. His fall was not
followed by the collapse of his power base. In fact, his former
allies secured various strategic positions in the new government,
while his business associates remain the most important factor
for the recovery of Indonesian economy. More importantly,
Soeharto and his cronies are not the only element of the New
Order establishment.

The rise of this regime was supported by a wide range of
social classes, especially the upper and middle class in urban as
well as rural areas, at the expense of the continuing repression
of workers and farmers. Soeharto's resignation does not
automatically alter this balance of class powers. Instead, the
lower class position continues to be further marginalised as
economic reform based on neo-liberal orthodoxies tends to benefit
the rich.

In so doing, democratization as a matter of the power
struggles of social groups and classes that have been excluded
from the decision-making process. In the past, this struggle was
marked by the prominence of the unprivileged classes in fighting
for political inclusion, while the classes that benefited the
most from authoritarianism resisted democratization.

Hence, the future of democracy is shaped by the balance of
powers between the dominant and subordinate classes over the
right to govern. Democracy in the sense of political inclusion
can hardly be achieved under social inequality.

This unequal distribution of resources will prevent the
people from possessing equal political rights, as those who have
lower incomes and less education tend to have limited power. As
social inequality embedded in class divisions is created by
capitalist system, political inclusion requires structural
transformation to alter the existing class structure.

Furthermore, the capitalist system tends to be in tension with
political inclusion because it is based on, and continues to
produce, social inequality. To begin with, inequality in the
capitalist system originates in class division.

The class that is able to control the means of production
forms the ruling class both economically and politically. Its
relationship with the productive class that constitutes the
subordinate class is exploitative and conflictual. In turn, the
capitalist system relies on this class division and social
inequality to produce economic growth.

It is argued that economic growth requires high rates of
investment. Investment depends on the level of savings that is
shaped by the level of income. In this sense, the unequal
distribution of resources is compatible with economic growth
because those who have much more income will have a large
proportion of their income for saving.

In conclusion, many Indonesians believe that Soeharto's
resignation has brought a bright future for democracy in
Indonesia. However, if they put issues such as the balance of
class power and social justice in to the consideration, the
prospect of democratization is not so promising.

The author teaches at Gadjah Mada University's Faculty of
Social and Political Science. He can be reached at
hiariej@ugm.ac.id