 What we see in Indonesia today is not so much the failure of democratic system as many would suggest but rather the failure of the state to perform its duty of serving the public interests and needs. The malfunctioning of the state elements to provide minimum level of public services in various sectors and structures indicates the condition of weak state characterized by deteriorating organizational and institutional capacities.
p.s.
it's good the jakpost didnt change my wording but too bad they cut two substantial paragrahps in the end. but if you want to read the whole article, just go here
 | We need a Patrimonial structure to survive...
That means, we need a King to make democracy works, or a Dictator, to stabilize the country? Sad, it is real sad... |
 | makdemplon,
my point is that we dont need a patrimonial structure revolving around one dictator. our state is weak because it used to rely on that structure that has vanished. what we need now is a strong institutional structure Suharto failed to build. |
 | Very good article. Cuman I feel like there's a couple of things something missing though. Why didn't you elaborate on the important role of civil society (check and balance?) and what kinds of institutions that we need to build to strengthen the state and democratic practice? Didn't Weber say "Once it is fully established, bureaucracy is among those social structures which are the hardest to destroy." So how can we change our bureaucracy to be more meritocratic and professional? These questions are still left unanswered.
Btw, kok ngga ke Kompas yg lebih banyak audiensnya? |
| thanks, anto. part of your question on civil society is answered in the two missing paragrahps which I quote below. on bureaucracy, weber is right but that's kind of old modernist ideal. in indonesian case, restrucsturing bureucracy must be linked to the complexity of decentralized system of governance in post-suharto state. my point, a bureucratic reform wouldnt be fruitful if the state's structural foundation remains on the unitary-state paradigm. this certainly needs further elaboration impossible to do on an op-ed article.
*********************
First, a democratic change along with new institutional settings it delivers takes some time to work effectively so as to create a prosperous civil society. The reason why they are not working well now is because the old paradigm and individuals of Suharto’s regime are still present and seek to recapture the state power. Only the force of democracy can push the remnants of New Order autocracy away from ruling the country back.
Second, reestablishing an authoritarian government is unrealistic because it does not conform to contemporary political conditions whereby democracy has become the foundation of our political system. The foreseeable option Indonesia has in hand is to push more and more participatory democracy in all fields of public life. This is the only way to strengthen the state that requires a big role of civil society. At the end of the day, it is a mutual relationship between the state and society that what Indonesia needs to reach a better future. So let us celebrate our democracy and never let it taken away by archaic minds.
***** |
 | so you saying it is more managerial problem? If so then what indonesia need is to hire good consultants to rearrange everything more efficiently. goes great with my 'now look for better technology' theory to solve problems rather than the 'changing paradigm' alternate. The choosing paradigm alternate should only be used sparingly.. such as want of 'revolution'.. we already went through that. I agree that we're done choosing abstract philosophies, we picked democracy, it's time to move on and actually crack some problems in practical way... but some people just wont let go! |
| republic wrote on Apr 24, edited on Apr 24 a cynical comment from a Jakpost reader today:
******************************
The problem of a weak state
From a sociological view, however, what we see in Indonesia today is not so much the failure of the democratic system as many would suggest, but rather the failure of the state to perform its duty of serving the public's interests and needs.
I absolutely agree. Sadly the crucial shift from the old philosophy of the people serving the government to a government serving the people has yet to happen in Indonesia and such is a cornerstone of democracy.
And while there is much to agree with this article, I find it ironic that this is written from Singapore, one of Asia's less democratic states.
SIMON
Jakarta |
| a comment from Economist editor:
Dear Professor Amir,
I enjoyed your article in the Jakarta titled "Democracy and the problem of a weak state", but was hoping you might be able to elaborate on one point that you make. You say that:
"The intervention of these institutions in a number of strategic public sectors such as mining, telecommunication, infrastructure, and education were meant to increase the efficiency of the government operation through the application of market mechanism in public management.
The outcome of this simplified approach is sadly the opposite as it reduces the opportunity for the state to enhance its capacities by giving away their jobs to the global market system dominated by multinational corporations. Thus instead of creating efficient management of public goods, neoliberal policies are inclined to create unintended crises in public sectors, widening the gap between the state and the people it is supposed to serve."
I was just wondering if you could go into more detail on this. It seem to be that allowing foreign players into the telecommunications market has had a lot of success, with the mobile phone network expanding rapidly and costs falling. Chinese investors are being used to build power plants that could not have been funded by the government. Private investors have begun to show interest in building toll roads, although land acquisition seems to be a problem owing to corruption problems. As for the mining sector, the mining bill being debated by parliament is heavily criticised by private mining companies and has stopped them investing in recent years and is the reason why the sector is doing poorly, not the inefficiency of private firms.
It seems to me that now more than ever, with fuel subsidies rising and putting pressure on government finances, the need for private partnerships in building infrastructure is greater than ever, and it might be a little irresponsible to recommend that this should be the area of the state alone. The power sector shows the dangers of such an approach - the monpoly of PLN over power distribution, combined with its lack of profitability, has led to dearth of investment in the sector, which threatens to lead to severe power shortages over coming years.
Inefficiencies in Indonesia's public service sectors seem to be born not out of a lack of private sector participation, but out of corruption, poor management and state intervention (again to use the power sector as an example, it is prices fixed by the state at low levels that render PLN loss-making and unable and unwilling to invest). I would suggest that greater private sector participation would help to solve some of these problems. Is there something that I'm missing?
All the best,
Dan |
| |
thanks, anto. part of your question on civil society is answered in the two missing paragrahps which I quote below. on bureaucracy, weber is right but that's kind of old modernist ideal. in indonesian case, restrucsturing bureucracy must be linked to the complexity of decentralized system of governance in post-suharto state. my point, a bureucratic reform wouldnt be fruitful if the state's structural foundation remains on the unitary-state paradigm. this certainly needs further elaboration impossible to do on an op-ed article. 
