'True democracy is a mere illusion'

'True democracy is a mere illusion'

JAKARTA (JP): True democracy has become a concept that is
ambiguous, illusory and one that is too far-fetched to be applied
in any country, a political scientist said yesterday.

Daniel S. Lev, a professor of politics from the University of
Washington in Seattle, U.S., said in a symposium that people are
now reluctant to look at the "realistic and urgent things" in a
society which should in fact be the main ingredients of
democracy.

"The original meaning of political democracy is that every
citizen participates directly in the government. If this is the
case, it means that no country in the world is democratic," he
pointed out.

The symposium on "Freedom and Human Dignity", held by the
Soedjatmoko Foundation in memory of Indonesian intellectual
Soedjatmoko, was attended by some 300 people, most of whom were
government critics, former freedom fighters, non-governmental
organization (NGO) activists, well-known literary figures and
students.

Yesterday's panel included former minister of environment Emil
Salim, political and social scientist Ignas Kleden and political
scientist Mochtar Pabottingi with Daniel Dhakidae, a researcher
at the Kompas daily, as moderator.

Lev, who presented his ideas in fluent Bahasa Indonesia,
considers democracy to be an ideal concept measured by the
people's level of participation in a state.

Currently, he said, it was understood that "democracy" only
existed if a leader was chosen by the people.

"This reflects not only a misunderstanding but also -- more
seriously -- a sort of illusion which merely attempts to satisfy
the political imagination and, in doing so, blocks the view to
more difficult issues that democracy must tackle," he said.

"'Democracy' becomes very easy to do -- because the real thing
is virtually impossible. On the other hand, establishing a
republic becomes a very arduous task -- because it is possible,
although difficult to achieve and preserve," he explained.

To build ties with its people and to legitimize its power, an
"artificial" nation state would most likely have to use symbols
of nationality, he said.

"People can easily love their country but can seldom love
their (artificial) state," he said.

Because governments cannot always satisfy everyone in society,
he said, applying symbols of nationality was not enough. The
government must also deal with the people's emotional ties to
maintain social solidarity and a nation intact.

Such a solidarity, he said, can be found in people of the same
ethnicity or religion.

"But in modern states, it is exactly these ties which are felt
as a threat towards the state and national unity," he pointed
out.

Lev called for a re-orientation towards minorities and
religion. Instead of seeing them as a threat, he said, they
should be regarded as strengths in a republic and treated fairly.

Political reformation in a state is only possible through a
bottom-up, decentralized process, he said, which would be
difficult for most governments to achieve.

"A republic requires the state to be not so powerful and for
the people to be capable of taking care of themselves," he
pointed out.

When asked for his opinion, Emil Salim replied that Lev and
his views reflected a "pessimist".

"There are external forces that keep developing which the
government cannot control. This is a sure factor which can
'force' the government to put the people's interests above that
of a small group of people," he said.

He cited the globalization of everything from economies, the
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, information and NGO
activities as such forces.

"Trends like these cannot be overlooked and that is why there
is always a reason to be optimistic," Emil said.(pwn)