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