As a general rule, the principles and values of democracy are assumed to be universal, or at least that they should be made universal. This is of great importance, because to assume that democratic principles and values are particular depending on where they are implemented, is highly risky.

Authoritarian and totalitarian governments can easily make use of the particular nature of democracy as a pretext under which to justify their anti-democratic behavior and even their political violence.

Indonesia has significant experience in this regard. In 1959 President Sukarno declared so-called "Guided Democracy", in the name of which his political opponents were arrested without due process of law and political parties that were not in his favor were dissolved and forbidden to operate.

Guided Democracy was supposed to be a better fit for the Indonesian character, which, it was claimed, was incompatible with liberal democracy.

Following Sukarno, President Soeharto, during the New Order administration, introduced the concept of Pancasila Democracy, in which it was assumed that, in order to meet the politi-cal needs and challenges of Indonesia democracy should be in line with the five principles of Pancasila *the basic philosophy of the Indonesian state*.

This was problematic, as the interpretation of Pancasila was that Soeharto's regime would hold a monopoly and his official policy was to be dispersed among the Indonesian political and educational communities through one-way indoctrination. People were required to believe that the fundamental character of Indonesian culture was harmony.

Since conflict and opposition allegedly contradict harmony, political opposition was outlawed under Pancasila Democracy. The big question is: how was harmony respected if so many people who were accused of being members of the forbidden Communist Party were criminalized and sent to jail or in to exile, without trial or even a chance to explain themselves?

On the other hand, however, it is clear that the implementation of the universal values and principles of democracy need local expressions and symbols in order to make them under-standable and acceptable to people in disparate contexts.

This is easy to understand because respect to our fellow human beings is expressed in different ways in different places. The way to say hello, for example, is so different depending on where one is in the country (not to mention the world).

In that sense, to introduce the principle of equality into a society where old feudalistic cultural patterns linger, is a very difficult undertaking. Under feudalism it was believed that people were inherently unequal and were entitled to different rights according to their birth and position in the social hierarchy.

Social positions were considered final and not interchangeable. Some were born to rule, some were born to work, and others were born to serve. If one tried to change his or her position, one was behaving against the Great Order of the Cosmology.

The remnants of the old feudalistic cultural patterns still linger in a society that, officially, wants to be democratic.

The division of labor in a feudalistic society is based on the division of power and the portion of power one is entitled to. The division of labor in a democratic society is based on the dif-ferentiation of expertise and the role one plays is based on their personal skill, education or ability.

In the present day politics of Indonesia there is significant friction between the two ideas of division of labor. So many people strive to become part of the ruling class, namely those with the most power. Meanwhile, to be a minimally responsible member of the political elite a high level of knowledge and expertise is needed.

Every modern profession presupposes the possession of certain expertise and training. Not everybody is allowed to become medical doctor, accountant, lawyer, or electrician.

In contrast, is seems the door to become a politician, particularly a member of parliament, is open to anybody who is interested. There seems to be no requirement for expertise or ex-perience. Perhaps it is that there might be some requirement but there is no parameter with which to measure it.

It is not surprising at all that in a doctoral thesis which was defended recently at the Department of Political Science, Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta, Idrus Marham, the secretary of Golkar's faction in the Parliament and Vice Chairman of Commission II, uncovered his findings about the average qualifications of members of parliament in Jakarta.

According to his study, of the 550 members of parliament, there are no more than 40 percent who are able to engage in substantial debates about the issues under discussion. The re-maining 60 percent can only be involved in the debates about their parties' position, but can offer no contribution whatsoever to the substance of the debate.

To make a long story short, as far as human resources are concerned, the main constraints for democracy in Indonesia lie with those who are supposed to rule.

The writer, a sociologist, is the Chairman of the Indonesian Community for Democracy (KID).

Popular

Why Indonesia must write ASEAN’s green rules

Freeport Indonesia pushes back full copper mine restart

Growth without gain: Why Indonesians don't feel the economy