Darmawan Triwibowo, Jakarta
It is summer in the United States and, with a year to go to the race for the presidency, the days have been feeling warmer than usual. The candidates, both Republican and Democrat, have been filling up their war chests and kicking off their campaigns.
National security issues and the Iraq War are making the headlines. However, welfare and social policy issues are not absent and are considered crucial for both the candidates and voters.
In the U.S., and other developed and mature democracies, welfare politics is of great importance. All the political parties believe the issue is relevant, but have their own ways of selling it to the voters.
Furthermore, they realize that the ability to deliver welfare and social policy, together with economic growth, will shape the future of democracy and its sustainability. People will only turn up for the polls if they believe their votes will affect their welfare. Therefore, there is always strong resonance between the people and the parties on the issue of welfare politics.
However, for citizens of infant democracies, the picture is less sanguine. Welfare politics remain strange, or at least emerge rarely. In Indonesia, the turbulent period after the independence war and the brief experience with liberal democracy under the Old Order gave no chance for welfare politics to bloom as the political elites struggled for power on the back of ideology, while all the time remaining oblivious to policy.
When Soeharto's New Order assumed power, it was he (and his select band of technocrats), who ran the show while the political parties played a rubber-stamp role. Social policy and welfare reform was based on Soeharto's ideas and used as a ""Bonapartist"" tool to stifle popular pressure and sustain his political dominance.
The crisis that struck in 1997, in one way, opened up the opportunity for welfare politics to take root. The experience of our neighbors in northeast Asia, like South Korea and Taiwan, showed that the financial crisis could open the window to a major rethinking among the political parties that would encourage them to position social policy and welfare reform as part of the political mainstream.
Combined with strong popular pressure from citizens, a strong political commitment to reform, encompassing various interests among the political elites and civil society groups, is driving the tide of change in health insurance, unemployment benefit and other social protection policies after being undermined by the decades-long ""economic growth"" policy.
But in Indonesia, despite the rapid development of procedural democracy, welfare politics never goes beyond the political rhetoric of poverty alleviation and unemployment, and is generally drowned out by the nationalist-secular versus Islamic debate.
How many of the big-five political parties produced by the last election have clear platforms on welfare issues that could help guide detailed policy making? None. This explains why after three years, the government has failed to come up with coherent policies to tackle poverty and other welfare problems.
So, how do we get out of the mess? Decentralization, against all odds, could be our best bet. Despite the skepticism and fears that decentralization could threaten national unity, widen regional inequalities, and produce a revival of local clientelism, it could in fact produce a brighter future for welfare politics.
Decentralization could open more space for political contestation so that politics would no longer be dominated by national dynamics. It will cut the ""political distance"" between the parties and their supporters, and force them to be more accountable about what they do.
Greater connectedness and competition, hopefully, will lead to political players no longer relying solely on a traditional patron-client relationship or cultural base. They will have to develop clear strategies on how to meet the real needs of the people. Conversely, the voters will have a bigger say and more leverage when casting their votes.
Indonesia needs to learn from Brazil, another developing country, to see how decentralization can make democracy work for the people. In Brazil, the decentralization process that started in the 80s has changed the political landscape at the national and local level as it facilitated a new realignment among political players.
New political forces with clearer agendas and ideas for social welfare reform have had the chance to emerge. The Workers' Party (PT) is the best example. Established in 1980, the party took 36 municipalities in 1988, 54 municipalities in 1992, 111 municipalities in 1996 and 187 municipalities in 2000, before putting its leader, Lula, in the presidential office.
This left-leaning social-democracy party is responsible for introducing such innovations as popular participation in municipal budget planning.
These innovations have improved the delivery of basic social services, such as healthcare, education and infrastructure, in many cities through more responsive planning and more effective resource allocation. They also facilitate social education among citizens and influence the way they play their roles in the democratic system.
But more than that, the PT has set a precedent and example which proves that promoting welfare politics could pave the way to power. This has encouraged other parties, from both the left and center, to replicate the PT's approach and strengthen the position of welfare politics at the heart of the political arena.
Does Indonesia has the ability to do the same? This is a tough question to answer as there a major differences between Indonesia and Brazil in the historical social and political context. It will need a relentless effort to educate our political elites and encourage them to position welfare politics at the center of their manifestos.
But as a friend said, it is better to be an optimist who is wrong than a pessimist who is right. We must ensure that the ongoing decentralization process helps democracy and its protaganists to serve the Indonesian people better by giving adequate room for welfare politics to take root and flourish.
The writer is program coordinator of Perkumpulan Prakarsa, an NGO that focuses on research and capacity-building. This article was originally presented as a paper during a seminar held by Perkumpulan Prakarsa in Jakarta on June 27-28. The writer can be reached at dtriwibowo@theprakarsa.org
