http://www.thejakartapost.com/detaileditorial.asp?fileid=20060411.E02&irec=2
Development and governance: Where is Indonesia heading? HS Dillon, Jakarta An old friend of Indonesia is in town. It is opportune, then, for us to revisit the issue of how we are progressing in our quest for a better tomorrow. To do that, we need to take a look at how we got here in the first place. For ease of exposition, let us begin with the crisis of 1997. In the early days of Soeharto, Prof. Widjojo and company helped him deliver on population control, rice self-sufficiency, affordable and far-reaching health delivery systems, education that addressed local needs, and infrastructure that wove Indonesia closer together. Although the push for rice self-sufficiency led to a very rapid decline in rural poverty, these technocrats were more keen to bake a bigger cake with borrowed better, to eventually deliver to the people. They believed that growth through equity would just mean distributing poverty. A semblance of democracy emerged, with general elections and fresh development plans every five years. In reality, though, a centralized, Java-based elite concentrated all power and wealth in Jakarta. The international financial institutions (IFIs) and foreign lenders played an important role: they allowed Soeharto and his cronies free rein to plunder because they did not have to be accountable to people, since aid obviated the need for a strong tax base. Land grabs, divvying up vast forest resources, and dispossessing indigenous societies and the marginalized were all acceptable in the name of development. Most of the bureaucracy and the armed forces shared in the spoils; there was a powerful nexus of debt, corruption, and poverty. On the whole, there was "pseudo-stability", enforced, where necessary, through the barrel of a gun. Everything that transpired in Aceh and Papua, including the forced disappearances and summary executions, bears testimony to the masked brutality of a despotic regime. Yes, the IFIs and UN development institutions were very much there, too. Crony-capitalism, which relied on poor governance, developed along racial lines. Its beneficiaries, the security forces, just looked on when human rights violations occurred against Indonesian Chinese. In the aftermath of the crisis, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) stepped in to help save the crony-capitalists, both Indonesian and foreign. This has engendered one of the gravest violations of the economic, social, and cultural rights of the Indonesian people since independence. Many of cronies did a vanishing act, and many others got away with paying a few cents on the dollar. The poor and marginalized were left holding the bag. Forced liberalization destroyed the livelihood of millions, and food security was compromised. Education, health services, and rural infrastructure were all allowed to deteriorate to service the debt (and fortune?) of the crony-capitalists. Trust completely broke down. Presidents came and went, apparently in much better financial shape. Prof. Habibie and Gus Dur did try to improve the quality of institutions. These efforts included decentralization, the anti-corruption commission, a poverty reduction agency, and a governance reform initiative. However, there was a massive roll-back under Megawati: she had to be pressured to appoint a selection panel for the anti-graft commission, the crony-capitalists were let off (although one of the Indonesian Bank Restructuring Agency chairs during her regime is now in custody), and the police exercised military powers. Decentralization, without proper governance, led to widespread corruption. If Soeharto could be classified as a solitary bandit, now a throng of roving bandits roamed all over. Is the picture now so bleak? Not entirely: a directly elected, pro-reform president is in office. A number of democratic institutions have begun to take root. Direct elections, a free press, and a number of institutions like the Constitutional Court and the Judicial Commission are flexing their muscles. On the surface, all of this seems to indicate that we are heading in the right direction. But are we really? Impunity continues to rear its ugly head. Somehow, the players during the Soeharto days -- those responsible for the crisis in the first place -- have emerged as voices of the new democracy. There is growing concern that commercial interests are dominating the media, and that they are no longer voicing "the conscience of the people" as their banners often proclaim. Conspicuous consumption is displayed in all urban centers, while the poor multitudes are still lining up for rice rations. Elaborate billion-rupiah cemeteries are being built, while millions of the living have no proper shelter. Is all hope lost? No, take heart, dear reader. The three years of directing the Partnership for Governance Reform have convinced me that there are very many good fellow citizens out there. We must identify them, and help develop equal partnerships between all these dedicated people in business, government, and society such that there is constant rebalancing between these three forces. Most of the watchdog commissions, as well as the wholesale indictment of regional legislators for corruption, and the NU-Muhammadiyah common front against corruption, are proof that applying "pressure from without" while building "capacity from within" works best in the Indonesian context. How could the IFIs, UN development agencies, and donors help? First, by removing the crippling debt legacy. Call it a democracy-tolerant Islam dividend, or whatever you like. Yes, the IMF, World Bank, Japan and the others may have to join in for the haircut, but it would be better to discuss the terms of the haircut now (shares in state-owned enterprises, safeguarding tropical forests, humanizing the pesantrens (Islamic boarding schools) or whatever global goods can reasonably be desired) than to wait until there is no pound of flesh to be extracted. Second, they should recall the petty international bureaucrats -- those trying to use Indonesia to get ahead in their careers. Finally, they must genuinely push for national and local ownership of all reform. The focus should be on equal partnerships to promote governance that sides with the marginalized. Perhaps Ambassador Paul Wolfowitz could nudge them in this direction. If the foreign and national elite can manage to transcend their own narrow interests, there may be hope yet for Indonesia. The writer is Senior Governance Advisor, Centre for Agricultural and Policy Studies, Jakarta. -- ---------------------------------------- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users. It has removed 27 spam emails to date. Paying users do not have this message in their emails. Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] *************************************************************************** Berdikusi dg Santun & Elegan, dg Semangat Persahabatan. Menuju Indonesia yg Lebih Baik, in Commonality & Shared Destiny. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ppiindia *************************************************************************** __________________________________________________________________________ Mohon Perhatian: 1. Harap tdk. memposting/reply yg menyinggung SARA (kecuali sbg otokritik) 2. Pesan yg akan direply harap dihapus, kecuali yg akan dikomentari. 3. Reading only, http://dear.to/ppi 4. Satu email perhari: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5. No-email/web only: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 6. kembali menerima email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ppiindia/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
