Too much talk obstructs rebuilding process
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.