Too much talk obstructs rebuilding process

By Meuthia Ganie-Rochman

BOGOR, West Java (JP): Transition to democracy is a process involving many factors. There are countries that are lucky enough to go through the process without social turbulence. In those countries, the democratization process was in most cases initiated by the ruling elite, who were aware on the global democratic tendency of modern societies.

However, there are more countries for which the road to democracy is dangerous. The initial process is signified not only by the battle cry of the ruling elite striving to maintain their political and economic privileges, but also by political groups competing among themselves to decide the direction of democratization.

In such cases, the politics of discourse emerge and dominate the public arena. Arguments, indignation, accusations and self- affirmation explode on it, and other important requirements of the process of democratization receive less attention, at least for a while.

Indonesia is a case in point for the second category; it could be said to be an extreme example. Before the fall of Soeharto, Indonesia was an authoritarian country. Centralization of power had been developed for 30 years. It was a great success in the sense that the government became the center of political power and the source of legitimacy for social organizations.

When all these achievements were swept away by financial crisis, Indonesians realized how their former patron had betrayed common goals such as justice and general prosperity. Then there was an urge for a democratic form of government. Democratic appeals become the new banner for every group to raise in the public sphere.

Along with it, political groups from all corners pursued positions and recognition in the building of a new governance. In this era of scarcity, the widespread feeling of anxiety among the political elite is mounting, and leading them to search out areas of political and economic resources that are still available: the state institutions.

The prominence of the politics of discourse at this stage of the democratization process in Indonesia has various causes. The fall of Soeharto was a dramatic one. Soeharto was one of Asia's strongest authoritarian leaders. So powerful has he been that observers consider him as an equal to the entire New Order government.

Critical groups once argued that if Soeharto retired it would bring the country toward democracy. When Soeharto eventually stepped down, people were realized that his retirement from the presidency was one thing, but to change the regime was quite another. New political groups emerged, and for some time paid little attention to building common programs for the reform of state institutions. Instead, they have busily endorsed their positions in the new political environment.

However, on the opposite spectrum of the new political landscape, the old regime has not disappeared at all. The same leaders with the same old political practices are still in place. It is true that some important changes in the political system have successfully been brought about by reformist groups. However, these changes relate mainly to allowing wider political participation: freedom of the press and the freedom to establish political organizations.

Unfortunately, the aspect of wider political participation is only one requirement of democratization. The political system itself needs to be responsive to various demands by different political groups. Otherwise, the public sphere where demands are voiced is only an institution within a series of political processes.

The direction of democratization is determined by the priority of the reformists as to which parts of state institutions need to be revised first. It has become a popular opinion that democratization is about controlling power. Therefore, the reformists, partly because of their own beliefs and partly due to public pressure, press their demands on this aspect. They have been particularly vocal on the abolition of the Indonesian Military (TNI)'s dual function, the limiting of president power and devolution of power to the regions. These issues have crystallized and become yardsticks for measuring one's political stance.

As already said, the politics of discourse has its own merits in the process of democratization. Discourse sharpens views, creates a people critical of political issues and develops certain moral controls to every political actor.

However, too much political discourse may be ineffective. Discourse distracts people's attention from the real work of institutional building. Because discourse often overlooks well- defined formulations and is less imbued with complete facts, it tends to blur issues and become emotional. It also tends to attach to primitive views and become personality-oriented. Another weakness is that because discourse is to serve one's position, it ignores the language of compromise.

What is the impact of too much of this politics of discourse? For sure, the politics transforms into stages where performances are more important than the backstage realities. Whether you like it or not, political actors must spend a lot of their energies in performing. Maybe this situation is enjoyed by political adventurers because they are most ready to play with words.

Politics of discourse also makes people delay the real task of the building of the new government, which is expected to be reformist, democratic, and transparent. Whereas nothing guarantees that the new government will be strong or democratic enough to press on with democratization.

Moreover, crystallized issues will become weapons of criticism for the opponents -- whatever their reasons are. On the one hand, it may be good to guide the direction of reform. But on the other, such yardsticks create an inflexibility and hamper creativity in taking alternative methods of democratization.

The institutional building of democratization is therefore a crucial aspect. This is the task to build a new power base. It is the way resources in society are managed. There is already abundant criticism of the state's performance in policy implementation and bureaucratic practices.

Indonesia is known to have the most corrupt government in the world. This status has not changed in spite of the democratic tendency in this country. The Far Eastern Economic Review magazine reported that some businesspeople consider that corruption has even become worse in some cases. The tremendous task of reducing corruption in order to improve common welfare is a huge task for the new government.

From a technical point of view, the politics of institutionalization rely on laws and a system of enforcement. In the era of political openness, laws are not created by the ruling elite but are open to public debate. At least, the government or people's representatives ask the involvement of experts from universities or the business world. Competency is the basis of arguments.

It does not mean, however, that the politics of institutionalization is a matter of technical capacity. In the making of regulations and bodies to enforce them, interests are accommodated. Take an example in the area of privatization. The regulation must take into account the interests of government, the investors, the consumers, and the workers. There are problems of equality -- for the nation's economy and representativeness -- and of who is going to protect the workers' interests.

The politics of institutionalization must remain within the framework of creating a new governance. It is not only a matter of regulation, but must cover the question of the new position of the state as much as the question of how to involve society in the new governance. In the New Order era, the state has been the patron to dominate financial resources, expertise, and problem formulation. The new politics of institutionalization must rely on the dynamics of society. Competent social organizations must be embedded in the process.

New forms of cooperation and networks need to be developed between state institutions and various social organizations. Therefore, increasing the capacity of social organization must be one of the nation's priorities. For example, the country must strengthen its educational institutions. In the past, the share of education in the national budget was only around 5 percent. Viewed from the perspective of nation building, this is a crime.

Transparency is another norm that needs to be developed. Co- operation that involves different parties cannot work without it. People need to trust each other. Trust, in turn, needs a method to maintain itself. In implementing the norms of transparency, debates on new regulations must invite competent people from the press, for example. The press community must, of course, increase its influence in the legislative arena.

Indonesia does not only need a new legitimate government, but also a government that is willing and able to develop new forms of cooperation among different groups.

The writer teaches in the Department of Sociology at the University of Indonesia.