Commentary/Mani Shankar Aiyar
Resisting oligopolisation of our polity is the most important
political challenge our democracy faces
Yet, the bulk of the economy is controlled by no
more than 40 conglomerates, mostly joint ventures with Indonesian
Chinese who constitute no more than four per cent of the country's
population.
"Distribution," says Anwar, "is
part of politics: who decides to allocate what, how much and to
whom. This has made our political system open to abuse, collusion
and corruption."
Editor Aristides Kattopo is blunt and categoric.
"Equitable distribution," he says, "is not perceived.
There is inequality of opportunity. Living standards may have
improved, but intangible demands for greater freedom, justice
and, above all, participation in the political process remain
unfulfilled."
Anwar is equally blunt. "The present
political system," she responds to my question, "is not sustainable. The people thus far have been passive
recipients of the process of growth, willing to accept the government
injunction that it will give you money so long as
you do what you are told. Now, there is a restlessness in the
air. The status quo is untenable."
Dewi thinks it is because 75 per cent of national
income is being generated in the private sector, an emerging middle class (even
though, by Indian standards, small, yet), a shift in the
base of the economy from extractive to manufacturing industries,
and the rise in non-oil direct revenue as the primary source of
government income that the demand for civic and
human rights, rule-based governance and greater transparency in
administration, is fuelling.
But while she thinks the demand now is not so
much for "democracy," as for greater "openness,"
Kattopo says the present political process is "outdated,
obsolete and no longer fulfills the dynamics of the present. In
politics, we have had stagnation. Recent eruptions show the
system can no longer cope." He goes further to claim
"political openness is needed for continuing economic growth
aimed at economic equality."
Sadli, on the other hand, holds
that "releasing political energy does not add to economic
energy." Dewi takes the middle path: "It is the success
of capitalism that is pushing for political reform. So the right
balance will be struck."
Change is, therefore, on the cards. But no one can
tell for certain whether the deregulation of the polity, to match
the deregulation of the economy, can be calibrated or controlled.
Sadli says, "If there is partial decontrol, the bureaucracy
will fight back -- and they always win!" He is talking economics -- but the perception applies equally to politics.
Kattopo believes, "While there is a recognition of the need to prepare
for change, the government has not been forthcoming in leading
the change. There is, therefore, the danger of things getting
out of hand. And if they do, the army might step in -- and Indonesia
could then go the Burma way." But he remains hopeful because,
"With CNN, you cannot shoot the workers and get
away with it any more!"
Dewi believes if the government plays
a pro-active role in these processes of political change, it might
be possible to make the processes "evolutionary," the
priority being to reduce the direct involvement of the military
in Indonesian politics and reform the electoral process to make
it more representative.
So, as Indonesia gropes towards democracy, we grope
towards growth. Perhaps they will become a democracy the day we
become a developed country -- and the argument will then be over.
But anyone who believes economics can be divorced from politics,
as, apparently, the newly elected CII chief N Kumar desires,
is really only asking that the cosy nexus between big business
and politicians in power be insulated from the buffeting of democracy.
Resisting such oligopolisation of our polity is the most important
political challenge our democracy faces as we gear up to Indonesian
rates of growth.
We cannot, must not, replicate the Indonesian
tragedy of sacrificing freedom for growth.
Tell us what you think of this column
|