Indonesia’s Uniquely ‘American’ Democracy
Rizky Bayuputra for Le Citoyen
Socio-Politics: 20 Years of the Indonesian Reformation
The last twenty years have been a time well-known for its dynamism and most importantly a uniquely interactive era for the general Indonesian populace. The rebirth of democracy in Indonesia after the 1998 ‘Reformation’, where the military junta led by General Soeharto was taken down and replaced with a ‘democratic’ government, has led to a new era for Indonesia both as a country and as a people. For no less than three decades, the average Indonesian–the worker, the farmer, the 9-to-5ers–have lived under the shadow of Soeharto’s New Order, a time viewed by progressives as a repressive and regressive epoch in Indonesian history, most significantly within the socio-political sphere; These very same progressives came into this post-98 Reformation era with high hopes that an American-model democracy would finally be established. In a way, their hopes were satisfied… in a uniquely American way.
An ‘American’ Democracy?
We can define an American Democracy by three ways, through a constitutional perspective, that of a social-cultural perspective, and that of a business perspective.
An American Democracy by a country’s constitution would be the most easily identifiable: the distribution of powers through the three branches of state (legislative, executive, and judicial, a trademark of many western countries). This enables the traditional check-and-balances between state institutions, while at the same time assisted by auxiliary organs; these circumstances create political institutions in the form of political parties, an electoral commission, and every single institution both legal and social, pertaining to the… ‘American’ democratic model.
Through a socio-cultural perspective, the ‘American’ composition consists of people with diverse ethnic and religious (not necessarily racial) background with a rather ‘controlled’ and ‘governmently-situated’ atmosphere of learning; I mean, we have to admit: America isn’t Ancient Athens or Sparta, where education was accessible to all and everybody had roughly the same level of education (though not necessarily through schooling). Most people in America, were, in fact, on the lower side of the spectrum, while the real players, the people with influence, sit at the top ~10% and on top of that, the ‘1%ers’ that actually run the country; a democracy that is effectively an oligarchy. This is further reinforced by exclusive educational institutions (elite schools and universities), and the institutionalized in-groups spread within sectors of industries (university ‘mafias’). These top 1%ers paired with the ruling elite oblige themselves into certain conventions that allow them to stay at the top and thus create such (unideal) atmospheres of learning, both in the strictly scientific and trade-based skills, a farce covered by the slogan of equal opportunity. This plants the feet of the oligarchic elite firmly on the soil, upon which they grow continuously within positions of dominance.
This example leads us to the third perspective: the business and financial dimension, and the somewhat underground, alien nature of the legal and banking world, which forms the core of the American economic vein and therefore, the financial elite; so far removed from the normal citizen. The industrialists, the capitalists, the big bankers–not the nobility or feudal lords–form their own ‘Senatorial’ (in the Roman sense) class, and pass these command batons from generation to generation. Laws and regulations were lobbied to ensure such means were achieved.
Where do we put Indonesia in this American Matrix?
Ever since the fall of the New Order, or in the last twenty years, geopolitically Indonesia has never been the most secure; culturally, most importantly in religious affairs, it has been highly volatile; in the context of law, order, and justice, it can be easily assumed through general opinion that Indonesia’s laws were in advocacy for the upper-middle and higher classes; financially, its institutions are not as strong as people would like. Then what would make it an American democracy?
Let’s put these three theoretical and factual assumptions into perspective.
Constitutionally, ever since the Reformation of 1998, multiple bills have been passed to truly ‘reform’ Indonesia as a people; to create a living, working, democracy. However, the most important change that could be mentioned were the four amendments to the original Indonesian constitution. The original allowed Soeharto’s New Order to maintain its tough grip on power for the c. 30 years before Reformation. These four amendments allowed human rights to enter the constitution, plus legal fiction that puts the three state branches into theoretical separation… allowing certain state auxiliary organs, political lobbies, and social and legal institutions that allow the pretext for other ‘American’ conditions to exist.
In the Social and Cultural spectrum, Identity Politics–ethnicity, race, and religion (like pre-1970s America)–play a huge role in every aspect of life. The latest case was in the form of the 2017 criminal trial The Republic of Indonesia v. Basuki T. Poernama also known as the ‘Ahok Trials’ that took place after a ‘religious defamation’ complaint forwarded by a certain communication sciences lecturer which resulted in the then-governor of the Jakarta Capital Region being sentenced to two years in prison. The complaint was based on a video where during his campaign for re-election to the governorship, where the then-incumbent governor stated that Muslims who believe in certain verses in the Koran to forbid Muslims to choose a non-Muslim leader, have the freedom to not vote for him in the upcoming elections. Governor Ahok, an ethnic Chinese and a practicing Christian–a double minority in the world’s largest Muslim country–was clearly at fault not for his actions, but due to his ethnic and religious identity.
The same works for his ex-running mate and now president of Indonesia, Joko Widodo, whose accusation of having Chinese and Communist ancestry created a wave of outrage in public opinion. This is a common reflection to Protestant-Catholic tensions, such as the Anglo-Saxon Protestant and Irish Catholic tensions in America’s long past. We don’t even need to mention the Hispanics and the Blacks to be reminded of this.
Even in employment, these assumptions ring true: in Indonesia it is a common fact that Chinese will have difficulty in being employed in the public sector, a stark contrast to the image of the ‘Pribumi Muslim’ (The Muslim Native) identity who gain almost golden tickets by that fact alone. On the other hand, Chinese minorities excel in the business, financial, legal, and academic world: you could see this in the top Indonesian conglomerates, and to a truly exceptional exception in the form of Prof. Charles Himawan, a Chinese-Indonesian professor of law who became dean of Indonesia’ foremost law faculty in the University of Indonesia. Funnily enough, this phenomenon reflects the Jews in the United States; plus, you don’t really see Jews being elected either, by the fact that they are Jewish.
This heads into the third spectrum. The Indonesian business world is dominated by Chinese capitalists and conglomerates. The large, multinational Indonesian companies dealing in tobacco were found mostly by ethnic Chinese, who would then have Chinese children who go to elite Catholic/Christian schools, and go on to enjoy quality education in the nation’s top colleges. To note, this not only happens to the Chinese, but also to the former wealthy landowners and nobility of the native Indonesians (Javanese and Sumatrans to be precise) who become players in their own right within the financial sector. Obviously, these old and powerful families try to ensure that laws and regulations always come their way; it’s a rule that has repeated itself over and over throughout history: that those on top never want to come down.
Powerful, wealthy families built into strong business alliances control Indonesian markets, paired with the odd foreign investor. It’s a rule commonly accepted as well that those who control the markets, the currents of a nation’s bloodline, controls the nation. In result, lobbying interests coming from the corporate world is not something unique to America; it also works here, in Indonesia.
Milestone: Income Inequality?
One common indicator that reflects the aspect that these two countries share are Income Inequality; something not rare for Indonesian people to hear, see, or feel. One man could buy 10 cars in a year, and another might not even have the cash to buy a bowl of rice. The three spectrums mention before seem to create, in effect, the wide gaps of income inequality in both Indonesia in America. The New York Times reported that the richest 1 percent in the United States now own more additional income than the bottom 90 percent. The same is regrettably happening next door: a report by Oxfam stated that Indonesia, with a population of more than 250 million, has the sixth-worst inequality in the world. Within Asia, only Thailand is more unequal. It blames “market fundamentalism” that has allowed the richest to capture most of the benefits of nearly two decades of strong economic growth, concentration of land ownership and pervasive gender inequality. In 2016, the wealthiest 1 percent of the population owned nearly half (49 percent) of total wealth, the report stated.
So 20 years after the Reformation, have things become better? Is the American Democratic Model a way to go? Or does it have nothing to do with how people fare their day-to-day lives in Indonesia? These questions remain unanswered and would perhaps not be so until decades after the publication of this article. Only time will tell what direction Indonesia would be going and how its efforts to combat (or the ignoring of) certain problems within the political models put to work at the moment, those within the societal-cultural-religious sphere, and the seemingly increasing domination of select interest groups that continue to push their power and wealth to the limits. Although no political system can be perfect, let alone the humans who make them, there is only one certainty that is already written in the annals of history: the rich will be richer, and the rest stuck, sadly, in terrible delusions created by the elite to keep them where they are, fighting each other.
REFERENCES
Kristof, Nicholas (July 22, 2014). “An Idiot’s Guide to Inequality”. The New York Times. Retrieved 27 April 2018.
Oxfam (23 February 2017). “Towards a More Equal Indonesia.” Oxfam Foundation. Retrieved 27 April 2018.
