TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Poverty and the purchased public sphere
During the campaign period of the 2009 election, poverty issues are among the most prominent issues
Change Size
During the campaign period of the 2009 election, poverty issues are among the most prominent issues. All political parties proclaim themselves as truly antipoverty parties. The issue has been repeatedly raised within a number of political advertisements in the mass media, on posters, or at mass meetings.
Debates have taken place among politicians regarding the large number of the country’s poor and the policies the government have imposed to eradicate poverty. However, there is a paradox. Among those vicious political disputes, our poor people are not merely materially lacking, but they have also lost their democratic participation. Broadly speaking, they have been undergoing a “deficit of citizenship”.
The modern democracy requires, among other things, an institution called the public sphere, within which the everyday participation of all citizens is accommodated. In the public sphere problems are raised, discussed, and if possible are then solved. The public sphere manifests in institutions ranging from the more formal, such as public seminars, the mass media, up to the more informal, such as bar and coffee shops. In a country that claims itself as democratic, a central question has to be posed: has every citizen had equal opportunity to access the public sphere?
The answer is “No!” Only the haves could access the public sphere. They are those who are involved in intellectual forums of public discussions and seminars. They are able to observe government performance through newspaper reports and, if they wish, write opinion letters. In their leisure time, they attend experts’ and politician’s debates on television, pick up the phone to voice their opinions, or casually pose critiques through text messages on their cell phones.
Among those very democratic situations above, where are the poor? Rather than buying televisions or subscribing to newspapers, they even have trouble affording a meal. Instead of picking up the phone or typing a text message, to earn some cash they have to sweat all day long.
Indeed, they do not have the power to tell their troubles to politicians they have elected. Democracy, for them, is only a five-yearly ritual. Democracy is the matter of “time”, not of “space.” It is just like Christmas, it doesn’t happen every day.
In his seminal work, the Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (1989), Germany philosopher Jurgen Habermas has taken into account the way the public sphere transforms. In its emergence in the dusk of the 18th century, it was the bourgeois’ tool to demolish feudalism and then establish more democratic nation-states. It gave a great contribution to the advancement of liberal capitalism.
However, the 20th century saw the development of organized capitalism. In contrast to liberal, free and equal competition, organized capitalism has a tendency to monopolize markets.
Organized capitalism rather creates human needs than fulfils them. The public sphere is monopolized as well. Previously, the public sphere was the field of open public debate. Now, the public sphere has become a meadow to manufacture public opinion through the polling system. Everyone who has power and money can intrude and control public aspirations.
Bourgeoisies buy the public sphere and thus provide the dishes on the democratic menus within. Politicians and intellectuals, who are fond of popularity, embellish the mass media with their eccentric grooming. They fluently dispute, contest opinions and compete for influence and sympathy. The media debates are no more than spectacles, controlled by the mechanism of the visual media market called ratings.
When the public sphere is purchased or monopolized, democracy becomes the property of the haves. They constitute the first class citizens. The poor are no more than the second or maybe third class citizens, needed only when democratic festivities begin. The poor will be useful for democracy only when they transform to be a mass. The masses are more suitable to make merry and cheer at the five-yearly parades than to be involved in the day-to-day politics. If the masses celebrate their democracy every time and every where, the result is anarchy.
The historical clock is turned back. Citizenship becomes a luxury. For the poor, citizenship is in deficit. Nominally, they are citizens, but, substantially, they have lost the most crucial element of citizenship within a modern democratic state; i.e. participation.
They are passive people rather than active citizens. Their voices never heard during the formulation of policies determining their own fate. Besides facing the external burdens, the poor also have to deal with their own internal troubles. By themselves, they are a very vulnerable and dependent community.
Affirmative policies need to be imposed not only for those who have been discriminated against culturally, but also for those who are deprived economically. An affirmative perspective should be considered by political parties, if they are serious about being pro-poor parties.
The writer is a sociologist and researcher at the Center of Asian Studies (CENAS), Jakarta.
