Whither civil society?

Whither civil society?

J. Soedjati Djiwandono, Political Analyst, Jakarta

Both Sukarno, through his "guided democracy", and Soeharto
through his "Pancasila democracy", robbed the sovereignty and
power of the people. In a sense, therefore, reform in Indonesia
is a process by which the people will endeavor to reclaim their
sovereignty and power from the state. Reform is to advance the
cause of a "civil society".

I am not going to dwell on an academic debate on the
centuries' long history of the changing development of the term
and concept of "civil society" with its ups and downs,
particularly as part of Western tradition of political thought.

Suffice it to say that while before the birth of the nation-
state civil society had been understood as the same as the state
itself, with the end of feudalism that had been markedly
increasingly dominant and absolute power, civil society began to
be posited vis-a-vis the state itself.

Gradually civil society has been understood quite apart from
the concept of state. It has been regarded as the answer or
reaction to the increasingly dominant and absolute power of the
state.

By contrast, therefore, civil society is marked by individual
freedom. And this individual freedom is expressed in the birth of
voluntary associations among citizens with some degree of self-
management over their own affairs.

It is often claimed that Western tradition of political
thought apart, some form of civil society was also to be found
such as in ancient times in the Middle East, particularly in the
days of the Prophet Muhammad in Medina -- hence the term madani
civil society, and -- the more or less self-managed desa
(village) in the old days of Java, and nagari in West Sumatra.
The point is clear: Indonesia has it own model of civil society,
believe it or not.

Be that as it may, the movement for the advancement of civil
society in Indonesia has not gone very far. In fact, there are
indications that it is on a serious setback.

Indeed, free citizens' associations particularly in the form
of non government organizations were not respectable in the eyes
of the New Order regime. However, they grew fast in number at the
onset of the reform movement in the wake of the decline and fall
of President Soeharto and his New Order regime. NGO's
increasingly gained respectability and popularity.

What has gone wrong? In the first place, the reform process
itself does not prove to be favorable to the growth of civil
society. Indeed, by definition "reform" means a change within and
through the existing system and constitution. That principle,
however, should not bar an eventual change of the constitution
itself. Whatever amendments have been made so far to the 1945
Constitution have not really touched the fundamental defects of
the Constitution, especially the establishment of an institution
with unlimited power (the People's Consultative Assembly, MPR).

One of the most important issues of reform is the supremacy of
law. But supremacy of law presupposes just law. On examination,
however, there are still dozens of constitutional provisions,
legislations, laws, and government regulations, including
presidential decrees, whose consistency with the constitution is
in serious doubt.

Most of these are discriminatory in nature, and are thus
against human rights. Numerous problems have arisen that have
made people's lives miserable because of discriminatory laws and
government regulations that discriminate against people because
of their racial, ethnic or religious backgrounds.

A mechanism for judicial review is badly needed. Yet the issue
poses a dilemma. A national consensus is an absolute must on
fundamental principles embodied in the constitution. The first
principle in the state ideology, belief in God, has always been
controversial. The myth is that it unites the nation marked by
diverse faiths. But the reality is that it has always been a
source of conflict.

The question if Indonesia is a theocratic or a secular state
is always answered that it is neither. Indonesians never realize
the contradiction in the argument that there is freedom of
religion in the country, but everyone must have a religion.

That the president shall be an "indigenous citizen" needs to
be clarified once and for all. Or else, it may continue to be
interpreted at the expense particularly of Indonesians of Chinese
stock.

Thus, as I wrote earlier, no matter how badly the nation needs
a mechanism of judicial review, its creation under the present
circumstances would pose a dilemma. It could be counterproductive
and dangerous, because it would not solve constitutional
controversies once and for all.

One important issue that has been agreed upon also is a system
for a direct election of the president. Whatever their diverse
motives, a direct presidential election would be an entry point
to constitutional change.

One of the fundamental defects of the present constitution is
the establishment of an institution -- the MPR -- with virtually
unlimited powers, controlled by and accountable to no one and to
no institution. A direct election of the president and vice
president in (a single ticket or otherwise) would make it
possible for us to do away with the MPR.

To agree to a direct election of the president while
maintaining the continued existence of the MPR, is a
contradiction.

It is our own choice, whether we want to work toward modernity
or complacently engage ourselves in self-delusion and get
nowhere, as far as democratization is concerned. Instead, we
would continue to have a constitution, which would be just a
recipe for dictatorship. This would simply mean that we would not
get any closer to the ideals of a civil society.

Because of their New Order mindset and mentality, which seem
to be beyond repair, the present generation of leaders and
politicians cannot be relied on to carry on the process of
genuine reform. They are unwilling and unable to reform
themselves, perhaps because of their vested interests and thus
their resistance to change, and hence their aversion to
constitutional change.

It is in terms of that mindset and mentality that I think of
the "old generation of politicians", or the "new order forces",
rather than in terms of their age or past association with the
New Order regime.

Unfortunately, however, an increasing number of free
associations of citizens, particularly NGO's, main stakeholders
of reform, have their own weaknesses. They have continued their
strong advocacy for good governance. But in themselves they often
fail in practicing what would be elements of good governance at
the national level.

A number of them are now beset by internal crisis and faced
with the threat of frictions and conflicts as a result of
mismanagement, lack of accountability and lack of transparency in
their financial management, and the prominence of personal
interests. They are losing credibility. They are sadly lacking in
"social capital". The net result may then be that we are getting
further away from the ideal of civil society.