In his keynote address at a Centre for Strategic and International Studies conference last week, titled A New Design for Indonesian Political Development, Vice President Jusuf Kalla, in his capacity as Chairman of the Golkar Party, reiterated his view that democracy was only a means to achieving people's welfare. We should not forget that democracy can only succeed if Indonesians can be prosperous and develop well.
He also said democracy was not the only means of developing prosperity. Kalla argued that economic development to improve people's welfare needed a certain level of stability. Authoritarian systems in developing nations seem to be able to achieve more stability, while democratic systems are messy and more unstable.
This is an issue not only in Indonesia, but in many developing nations. There is no question that democracy is the least objectionable of all political systems, because it can change governments peacefully through elections, legally and constitutionally. But it needs other aspects to be sustainable as the preferred political system. For that it should be help bring about a humane society, social justice, and a prosperous nation. It should not only be an instrument or means to express the will of the people, but should also have content, values and objectives. These values are becoming more important for any modern society to strive for, and for democracy to be sustainable in the longer term.
But more important for developing nations is the question of whether democracy could be an instrument for achieving improved welfare and prosperity, especially if compared with more authoritarian methods. China immediately comes to mind. The theory in East Asia has been that economic development has to be given priority before political development can happen. This is so because it is assumed that certain pre-conditions have to exist before democracy can take hold. These include a minimum level of education and a certain critical mass of the middle class. These will bring about economic development that enables free choices to be made so as to balance state power and to create political space for the people.
It should also be recognized that democratic space should be expanded gradually but as soon as possible. Then it should slowly but consciously be built it up until a certain level of democratic consolidation is achieved. This should include the firm establishment of the rule of law and human rights. Here is where the government and leadership come in. Democratization is taking place in a number of East Asian countries -- South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines. While democracy has spread in East Asia, it should not be seen only as a political instrument. A true democracy must fulfill certain criteria: supremacy of law, equality before the law, and the ability to change governments in an orderly fashion. However, the human factor, namely leadership and socio-cultural values of the societies also play an important role in the development and sustainment of democracies.
Democracies in East Asia are still immature, because institutions are still weak -- as in Thailand or Indonesia -- or a feudal system is still in place that entrenches the power of the oligarchy -- as in the Philippines. Therefore, setbacks could still happen in the region, because not all of the criteria have been fulfilled.
It is also important to recognize that economic development alone will never be adequate for modernizing societies. It should always be paired with political development. Development is change, and change is inherently "destabilizing", especially in the era of globalization, where domestic issues and international challenges can no more be separated. The "instability" due to change can only be overcome through the development of political institutions and mechanisms that could empower and channel people's aspirations.
In the case of China, the leadership appears to have come to some understanding now about the need for political space and development, but how this can be made compatible with their authoritarian system is still the big question. Their challenge is whether the leadership will be united and courageous enough to adopt change as socio-political pressures are building up due to successful economic development. With 9-10 percent economic growth annually for the last 25 years, those pressures are definitely present, as has been shown in the last 3 years. The leadership is trying out the concept of democracy by introducing local elections in villages to provide some political space. It remains to be seen whether they will be less timid in expanding in the future. It may be a necessity.
Singapore has always been presented as the case where limited democracy produced sustained economic development that transformed a former colony into a first world country. But Singapore is the exception to the rule, because it is only a city state, where control and social engineering have been successful largely because of the rule of law, good governance that ensures an incorruptible government and bureaucracy, while improving social welfare is taken seriously. Even so, Singapore too has to become more open politically, if it wants to advance in high tech and services, where HRD and creativity are the most important factors. And to be successful, Singaporeans must be willing to commit themselves to the future of the state and society.
In contrast, Indonesia is a large country with a diverse society, and the economic crisis of 1997 was a major setback for economic growth and employment. The only way to overcome the deep impact of Soeharto's authoritarian rule is to build a democratic system that ensures the real and effective participation of the people, including a greater role for the autonomous regions.
Democracy can be messy because compromise and consensus must be reached through deliberations. And it is also slow. In contrast, authoritarian rule can be quick and resolute, but the system can not be maintained in the long-term. There is great potential for upheaval because the repressed demand for change will eventually come to surface. Indonesia found this out, and it was taken back almost to square one.
Now, eight years after the fall of Soeharto, the pendulum has begun to swing back to the middle, and from now the process of democratic consolidation may be less volatile. Despite the challenges, we have gone a long way towards stability, and now we can be assured that unity can be maintained. Only two years ago, this was still a close call.
We are not yet out of the woods, and the national leadership under SBY-Kalla has to understand that time may be running out. Competition in the region is growing fiercer and if we do not get our act together now we could be lose out rapidly and miserably. This will happen not because there is "too much" democracy, but because the consolidation of democracy was not taken seriously.

Jusuf Wanandi

(Co-founder; Vice Chairman, Board of Trustees, CSIS Foundation)