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.