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demand now is not so much for "democracy," as for greater "openness," Kattopo says the present political process is "outdated, obsolete and no longer fulfills the dynamics of the present.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