The benefits of democracy

Deswanto Marbun ,  JAKARTA   |  Wed, 04/08/2009 11:02 AM  |  Opinion

As we welcome the “party of democracy” on Thursday, it is worth reflecting on a number of issues on the concerns and benefits of democracy.

First, as much as we all yearn for democracy, the system does not guarantee that basic development objectives, such as significant poverty reduction across the country; sustainable social protection for the people, encompassing health and education sectors  —  especially for the poor; and a business enabling environment for business players  —  (mostly those in the informal sectors), will  become top priorities under the winning parliamentarians or even the executive bodies.

Why? As some scholars argue, there is an institutional incompatibility between democracy and development. Basically, the ingredients for both recipes are quite different and therefore the menu should perhaps be offered on different occasions.

While development requires a far reaching and rapid change in the structures and uses of a nation’s wealth, democracy demands political compromises, consensus, and accommodation on the part of its players.

More often than not, these political games produce conservative and incremental changes that are not suited to the goals of development.

At the local level of a decentralized Indonesia, this has resulted in numerous missed development opportunities that could be executed effectively if only local political actors could put aside their short-term agendas.

The case for whether democracy can enhance development outcomes in developing countries should be considered with caution since political contests in these countries are organized through the mobilization of patron-client factions, as opposed to the mobilization of class or economic interest groups.

Presumably, those who gain power from the elections will prioritize their own clients’ interests, and not the people’s aspirations. The recent decision by the Constitutional Court that the most votes wins puts this argument into the appropriate context.

Nonetheless, whether this decision will reduce or, on the contrary, exacerbate the way patron-client relationships work in Indonesian democracy after the election remains to be seen.

To give a more balanced perspective, there are two points that lead us to some optimism about democracy. First, simplifying the definition of democracy to only the dynamic of general elections seems unfair.

There are two different aspects of democracy besides the electoral representative facet: the basic minimum civil and political rights, and accountability procedures in daily administration. These two facets are benevolent aspects of democracy.

As the mechanisms and technicalities of our upcoming general election are questioned, it is unlikely that we will have the best people doing the job of representing the people. Therefore, the best possible option we have is to exercise our political rights by putting more demands upon the next elected legislature and executive.

More blogs, websites, mailing lists, letters to the mass media, and SMSs to channel our voices are just a few examples of effective, cheap ways to ensure the accountability of public officials and elected legislators. If more and more people start communicating their demands using these different methods all across the country, the impact could be significant.

At the end of the day, the way democracy works in this country is only partially dependent on the five minutes of our time at the ballot box. It is through our day-to-day constructive criticism that we will have the most impact.


The writer is a researcher at the SMERU Research Institute. The article reflects his own opinion.

Copyright © 2008 The Jakarta Post - PT Bina Media Tenggara. All Rights Reserved.