Juwono Sudarsono

Setiap akhir tahun berbagai kalangan di dunia menerbitkan survei kemajuan demokrasi di beberapa negara maju maupun negara berkembang.

Masing-masing survei membuat kajian berdasarkan selera ukuran dan indikator masing-masing.Ada yang mengedepankan “keterbukaan politik” seperti kemerdekaan pers, kebebasan berserikat, penghormatan pada golongan minoritas (suku, agama, dan ras). Ada juga yang mendasarkan pada besaran “golongan menengah” masingmasing negara. Survei bisnis dan ekonomi umumnya mengacu pada kemampuan pengelolaan utang publik maupun utang swasta serta kemampuan pengendalian fiskal negara.

Indonesia telah lama disebut sebagai “negara demokrasi terbesar ketiga”, setelah India dan Amerika Serikat, sedikitnya menurut hasil Bali Democracy Forum yang diselenggarakan 9-10 Desember 2010.Namun,beberapa kalangan mempertanyakan tolok ukur yang dipakai untuk pemeringkatan seperti itu.

Terutama kalangan aktivis yang menekankan pentingnya demokrasi ekonomi,sosial,dan budaya sebagai sandaran matra demokrasi dalam arti luas. Karena tolok ukur yang berbeda, muncul berbagai interpretasi tentang makna keberhasilan demokrasi di negara-negara seperti India, China,Brasil,dan Indonesia.

Kalau ditinjau dari tolok ukur hak asasi manusia (HAM) dalam lima matra yang utuh (kebebasan sipil, politik, ekonomi, sosial, dan budaya), tidak ada negara maju maupun berkembang yang sempurna menjalankan demokrasi. Di India dan China, misalnya, yang masing-masing berpenduduk 1,1 dan 1,3 miliar manusia,hanya 300-350 juta orang yang memenuhi tolok ukur HAM secara utuh.

Jumlah orang India yang mampu secara ekonomi dan sosial menikmati “demokrasi ” hanyalah 300 juta yang menduduki “kelas menengah” India dengan pendapatan per kapita antara USD3.000-6.000 per tahun. Selebihnya, sekitar 700 juta manusia, belum terjangkau hak ekonomi, sosial, dan budaya.

India pemeringkat pertama demokrasi dunia kalau diukur hanya dari 2 matra HAM,yaitu kebebasan sipil dan kebebasan politik.Dari segi hak ekonomi, sosial, dan budaya, lebih dari 700 orang India terjerat dalam kenistaan yang menyedihkan.Demokrasi “gaya Westminster” tidak bersendikan keadilan dan kewajaran sosial, ekonomi, dan budaya.

“Kelas menengah” di China juga hanya berkisar 300- 350 juta orang yang sudah menikmati “kenaikan kelas” ekonomi selama 30 tahun kemajuan pesat China sejak 1979. Tetapi, rakyat China yang di pedalaman dan hidup jauh dari pusat-pusat ekonomi China di sepanjang kota-kota pantai selatan masih bergelut dengan perusakan lingkungan, penurunan kesehatan,dan kemiskinan yang amat mencengkam. Mukjizat“Konsensus Beijing” tidak bersendikan lima matra HAM yang utuh.

Mukjizat Brasil yang kerap dipuja- puja kalangan media negara maju juga tidak kalah memprihatinkan. Ketimpangan ekonomi antara kaya dan miskin,antara kota industri dan hutan di pedalaman, pembunuhan terhadap kaum miskin kota.

Di sejumlah negara Eropa Barat sekarang sedang dikaji sampai di mana demokrasi Inggris, Prancis, Jerman, dan Italia bisa luput dari menjeratnya utang negara yang dialami Yunani, Spanyol, dan Irlandia.Pengelolaan uang negara jadi ukuran penting demokrasi yang sejati karena jaminan sosial ekonomi dari negara terancam beban pengetatan fiskal.

Di Amerika Serikat (AS), jawara demokrasi negara paling kaya di dunia,utang negaranya bahkan sudah mencapai 66% dari pendapat domestik bruto. Dana talangan pemerintah sebesar USD850 miliar lebih dipakai dan dinikmati oleh 13 bank swasta terbesar yang asetnya mencapai USD10,5 triliun.

AS mungkin demokrasi politik kedua terbesar di dunia; tetapi AS adalah suatu oligarki perbankan/keuangan di Wall Street, yang juga menguasai komisi-komisi ekonomi dan keuangan di DPR dan Senat AS. Reformasi layanan kesehatan untuk 30 juta orang AS tersendat oleh DPR dan Senat Amerika yang dikuasai lobi-lobi industri obat dan kesehatan yang amat kuat.

Terlepas dari debat demokrasi politik dan demokrasi ekonomi mancanegara, bagaimana demokrasi Indonesia? Jika ditinjau dari segi lima matra HAM secara utuh (sipil, politik, ekonomi, sosial, budaya), potret demokrasi Indonesia tidak terlalu jelek, tetapi juga belum terlalu bagus. Dari 237 juta orang Indonesia, hanya sekitar 45- 50 juta “kelas menengah Indonesia” yang hidup layak dalam arti memiliki hunian layak untuk manusia, akses pada layanan publik yang memadai, cukup sandang pangan, serta terjangkau listrik dan air minum.Kelas
menengah Indonesia ini pendapatannya sekitar USD3.000- 7.500 setahun. Umumnya orang profesional atau semiprofesional di kota-kota besar (Jakarta, Surabaya,Medan,Makassar, Semarang,Palembang, dan sebagian kota madya yang memiliki infrastruktur yang memadai).

Dalam pertemuan Kabinet Indonesia Bersatu II dan para gubernur se-Indonesia pada April 2010, Presiden SBY menekankan pentingnya kebangkitan kelas menengah Indonesia untuk ”memajukan kualitas demokrasi Indonesia.” Kelas menengah Indonesia ini adalah andalan memajukan hak sipil, politik, ekonomi, sosial, dan budaya secara utuh dan tak terpisahkan. Mereka kini diandalkan sebagai motor penggerak Indonesia yang lebih adil dan sejahtera dari Sabang sampai Merauke.

Kelas menengah yang 45-50 juta inilah yang menjadi sasaran bidik industri media massa hiburan, televisi,dan aneka ragam “talkshow”. Mereka orang-orang mapan yang naik ke dunia gemerlap “di atas garis kenikmatan”.

Mereka harus diingatkan untuk memperkuat konsolidasi demokrasi Indonesia ke bawah dengan mengurangi ketimpangan ekonomi,menutup celah sosial dan budaya yang masih mencengkam lebih dari separuh penduduk Indonesia, termasuk 57 juta kelompok usia 15-35 tahun yang rentan kerawanan sosial politik. Kelas menengah Indonesia ini harus menghindar diri dari “perangkap negara menengah” di mana anggota masyarakat yang telah naik ke kelas menengah menjadi puas diri dan tidak peduli pada mereka yang masih tertinggal.

Dan kelas menengah Indonesia harus berlomba untuk lebih baik daripada kelas menengah India,China,Brasil,bahkan kelas menengah AS sekalipun. Jika berhasil, barulah kita pantas menyatakan diri sebagai negara demokrasi yang berkualitas.

My Keynote Remarks at the Joint Symposium on ASEAN Peacebuilding organized by Paramadina University and Harvard University at Paramadina University, Jakarta.

I congratulate Paramadina University and Harvard University for jointly organizing this timely symposium. It is fitting that we gather in this symposium on peace-building December 10 on the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. For when we talk about post-conflict resolution and peace-building we must ultimately talk about human rights in all of its five dimensions: civil, political, economic, social and cultural. As the United Nations Human Rights Summit in Vienna in June 1993 aptly stipulates, those five dimensions must be integrated, inseparable and proportional in their implementation in all countries, regions and continents throughout the world. While acknowledging the universality of the Declaration, the Vienna Summit also recognized the imperative to take into consideration the “ region specific” as well as the “historical and cultural context” of human rights in each country. After all, the true meaning of human rights__and indeed of peace and justice__can only have relevance within a particular ground level national and cultural context.

Well before Indonesia proclaimed independence in August 1945, our founding fathers had for months debated the basis of state identity of the projected Indonesia nation. Although the Indonesian nation then, as now, had the largest number of Muslims in any single country, our founding fathers affirmed in Pancasila as our state identity, incorporating a sublime blend of all the major religions, beliefs and secular norms prevalent in our diverse cultures. This agreement on fundamentals was pioneered and had been fought for politically, diplomatically as well as militarily by Indonesians of all creeds, races, ethnic group and provincial origin. Our founding fathers decided that the unitary state of Indonesia should uphold and respect the rich diversity and mutual tolerance of all of the nation’s living religious, cultural, ethnic as well as racial heritages. A healthy sense of modern nationalism triumphed over narrow primordial loyalties.

Pancasila___Believe in God, Humanitarianism, Nationalism, Democracy through Deliberation and Social Justice__became our agreed basis of what constitutes Indonesian-ness. Pancasila defined the platform of our “peace charter” binding Achenese in the west and Papuans in the east, committing North Sulawesi citizens with the peoples in the island of Rote. We remain today the world’s largest Muslim majority country, but by deliberate consensual choice not an Islamic state. In the course of our post-independence period, this belief in the mystical and mythical quality of Indonesian unity and cohesion based on our interpretation of “unity in diversity” was adhered to by the vast majority of our social and political leaders, Muslim as well as non-Muslim. But like all charters, pledges and political symbolism, Pancasila as a nation-wide commitment can only endure if its underpinnings is supported by a robust and balanced fulfillment of all five dimensions of human rights__ civil liberties, political freedom , economic sustenance , social cohesion and cultural resilience . This is the only way we can replenished a greater sense of Indonesian-ness from generation to generation.

Most people advocating tolerance and diversity do so because by they enjoy civil and political liberties precisely and because their economic, social and cultural needs have been adequately met. It is a truism to say that “Where you stand depends on where you sit; where you sit depends on what you eat; what you eat depends on where you where born.” One defends the rule of law because one’s particular station in life has made it convenient and expedient to be “part of the system” and one’s economic, social and cultural foundations are already sound and secure.

Over the past 10 years, various Indonesian administrations have sought to strengthen our sense of political, economic and cultural cohesion stronger and more resilient by addressing several priority issues.

Overcoming disparities in development: Globalization has differing affects on different layers of society across Indonesia’s 33 provinces. Today 34 million Indonesians live on less than USD 2 a day, another 7,5 million openly unemployed. Access to basic human needs__ clean water, primary health care, adequate housing, affordable electricity__ are still restricted to 10% of our population (25 million Indonesians whose annual GDP per capita are above USD 2000). The horizontal disparities are in many ways more daunting: 85% of the population live in Western Indonesia, only 15 % reside east of Bali. Eastern Indonesia generally suffers from lack of the provision of public goods__ roads, ports, airports, electricity grids, telecommunication, schools, hospitals. Although resource rich in oil, gas, gold, nickel, minerals and timber, both East Kalimantan and Papua still need the physical infrastructure and human capacity to run modern and viable local administrations capable of delivering much needed basic human services;

Mitigating corruption in the public and private sectors: Indonesia did not inherit a viable system of public administration. Nor did it have a sizeable civil service or middle class to provide the transmission belt between the very rich and the desperately poor. As a result, running the public bureaucracy and governance in the private sector have been managed by a tiny trained minority whose luck in the draw of life have made them play a disproportionately important role. More public private partnership programs sector can much to stimulate graduated equitable development as well as outreach to the lower middle class, even more to the underclass. The invisible hand of the market must be tempered by the guiding hand of smart state policy;

Addressing poverty reduction: President S.B. Yudhoyono has consistently affirmed the centrality of poverty reduction as his immediate and long-term goal in defining his political vision. Although poverty by itself does not necessarily lead to violent extreme behavior, its scale and acuteness may often be used by a small minority of misguided extremists to justify their resort to violent behavior on behalf of defending the destitute and the desperate. The scope and pace of poverty reduction will affect the manner in which we can implement ground-level social binding and peace building

President S.B. Yudhoyono identified good governance as one of the key priorities in peace-building at all levels: national, provincial, local. Over the past 5 years, in regions afflicted by political, communal, sectarian and ethnic violence__Aceh, Central Sulawesi, Ambon and Papua___the Ministry of Defense (Dephan) and the Indonesian Defense Force (TNI) are fully committed to support graduated political democratization towards greater competence and capacity building in civilian government, including ground-level post-conflict resolution and peace-building.

The TNI’s role has shifted from leading and dominating to measured presence in support of building the five pillars of democratic governance: civil society, political parties, the police, the prosecutors office and the courts system. Community policing is supported by the TNI’s measured Territorial Capacity Building. Every governor, district and sub-district officer in all of our 33 provinces and 493 second-tier governmental bureaucracy recognize the need to emulate the code of the military profession. Provincial, district and sub-district bureaucracies are expected to adopt similar rotational schemes which are all-important for fostering national administrative capacity-building, as well as for effective managerial capacity down to the village level. Additionally, the TNI is tacitly assigned to help accelerate sustainable economic growth. Not merely growth with equity, but more critically growth through equity. Measured military presence at each level of economic growth help define the rate of governmental capacity building at all level: national, provincial and local.

Every generation of Indonesia’s soldiers and officers is involved in a constant process of day-to-day “nation-building” and “nation-replenishing.” From Aceh to Papua, Army soldiers teach grade school arithmetic, help build bridges, rehabilitate villages and irrigation canals, provide rudimentary health care. Navy sailors and marines provide crucial logistical support to remote or isolated islands. Air Force personnel fly and distribute emergency relief to post-conflict areas and to victims of natural disasters. Each deed reinforces the locals’ sense of being cared for and participating in a more vibrant nation-wide common endeavor. Where thresholds of tolerance regarding what constitutes equity and fairness can be tenuous and fickle, more often than not it is the local soldier who acts as the credible “cultural broker.” This is the enduring task of being a people’s defense force. We firmly believe that in the final analysis,. social justice is a nation’s best defense.

Muslims in Indonesia co-exists and are enriched by day-to-day interaction with the practices, rituals and symbols of fellow citizens other faiths and beliefs: Catholicism, Protestantism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Confucianism. “Indonesian-ness” is not based on a single majority ethnic group such as the Javanese. Nor is it based on a dominant “cultural heritage” like Malay identity, though some parts of western Indonesia find affinity with Malay culture. And in the eastern half of our country there are more Melanesians than in all of Melanesia proper.

Military presence and democratic governance are directly linked to narrowing the vertical “rich-poor gap”, as well as the western-eastern horizontal disparities in our archipelago. Differentiated rates of access to new knowledge and skills may endanger our nation’s sense unity and cohesion. Measured political development and successful political democratization cannot be sustainable without broad-based economic democratization. Both political and economic democratization cannot succeed without constant cultural replenishing of being Indonesian at ground-level. In addressing domestic and international terrorism, interdicting financial networks and disrupting their organizational capacity, the arrest and prosecution of suspected perpetrators must be conducted on the terms of Indonesian authorities and under the provisions of our legal system. Discreet and timely foreign security assistance rendered “on tap” are much more legitimate and effective than aid provided through virulent “on top” pressure from abroad.

Ultimately, violent extremism can only be overcome by concerted efforts to reduce inequities in development, reduce corruption and accelerate programs in poverty reduction. The police, the prosecutors office and the courts system can only do so much in addressing issues related to our young citizens who out of desperation and destitute find salvation in misguided religious martyrdom through violent behavior. Local religious, social and youth leaders can and must do their part. We are working hard to reduce these grievances so that the poor will not have to take their own lives because they have nothing to lose. We have to persuade them that a far greater mission in life is not to dare to die, but to have the audacity to live and work hard towards a better future.

Democracy is fine for those whose basic human needs (food, shelter, clothing, access to electricity, clean water, education) have been met. But for a large number of Indonesian (39 million living on less than 2 dollars per day; 10 million openly unemployed; 15 million families having to receive direct cash transfers) democracy has little personal meaning. The biggest challenge for President Yudhoyono is to attack mass poverty, overcome inequities in development and combat corruption. Radical groups, be they be religious or secular based, pose a threat to Indonesia’s democracy.

But hope remains that within the next 3 years the threat of radical and violent extremism can be mitigated and that as democracy is underpinned by broad based social-economic development, Indonesia’s democracy can be salvaged and made sustainable. The following new analysis from a recent Reuters report sheds light on the socal-economic dimensions of Indonesia’s democracy.

Read more »