Democracy is still a risky business

 The Arab Spring looks to Indonesia as a

democratic role 'muddle'

Ross B. Taylor and Professor Colin Brown

The winds of change are sweeping through the Arab world and leading the democratic revolution called the ‘Arab Spring’ is North Africa. Egypt’s Mubarak is gone and Libya’s dictator Gaddafi is dead.  A new dawn for two of North Africa’s most influential countries as their people seek a democratic future.

But where can Egyptians, Libyans - and the other emerging members of the Arab Spring -  look for a role model to lead them through the turbulent and difficult transition from ruthless dictatorships to a free and open style of government that includes a ‘people’s president’ who has been elected fairly by a transparent and democratic process?

Indonesia? Perhaps.

The similarities between Indonesia and the North Africa states are profound. Suharto ruled Indonesia for over 30 years until he was overthrown by a ‘peoples uprising’ in 1998. Mubarak ruled Egypt for over 30 years until 2010, and Gaddafi dominated his people for over 40 years until his overthrow and death.

Suharto’s demise was preceded by the death of his wife who had maintained strict control over their ‘entrepreneurial’ children, which in turn lead to widespread frustration and resentment amongst the younger student generation and the middle-classes. Mubarak, Gaddafi and their respective children, saw themselves being confronted with a similar fate to their Indonesian counterpart.

Following the downfall of Suharto, even the most optimistic commentators would have been reluctant to bet on a peaceful transition to democracy, yet today Indonesia stands not only as the world’s largest Muslim nation but, with its 240 million people, a good example of how a democratic process can not only be established, but also how it should be successfully consolidated and developed within the Islamic world.

The Indonesian president, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (‘SBY’) is in his second and final term as Indonesia’s most popular leader since Suharto’s demise; the country is enjoying around 6.5% GDP growth; an open and vibrant press and an increasingly affluent middle-class. Trade with Australia exceeds A$11 billion each year and Indonesia is now being widely considered  a ‘member’ of the BRIIC group, joining Brazil, Russia, India, and China, as the economies that will drive world growth into the future.

More importantly, and breathtakingly, the transition in Indonesia took place with comparatively little bloodshed with the once all powerful military being consigned to simply protecting the country’s borders rather than operating as one of Indonesia’s major corporations!

The transition from a dictatorship to the democratic government we see today was helped by two significant factors that the Arab Spring may find hard to emulate: Firstly, Indonesia’s women who not only live a far more ‘liberal’ existence, but are active in every aspect of life, from family to politics and from teaching to the highest levels of business.

Secondly, was the role of mainstream religious organisations at the time. Traditionally within Indonesia the two major Islamic groups, Muhammadiyah and Nadhlatal Ulama (NU) have always maintained a very moderate approach to Islam. Their desire to see Indonesia maintain its quasi-secular status has certainly helped the process of democratisation and political stability throughout the archipelago.

But here lies the paradox:

As North Africa looks to its cousins in Indonesia as an example of how a large Muslim nation can successfully transform itself from dictatorship to democracy, and Western governments and commentators applaud the role of ‘SBY’ and his ‘progressive government’, internally many Indonesians are increasingly questioning their president’s desire and ability to maintain and build on that vibrant democratic process within the borders of their country.

In the past year the more radical elements of Indonesian society have started to flex their muscle. Groups such as the Islamic Community Forum (FUI) and the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) aspire to a more fundamentalist Indonesia and their supporters have been increasingly active in pushing for this goal. Acts of violence, not only against Christian minorities, but also – and much more frequently -- against fellow Muslims such as members of the Ahmadiyyah sect have become more regular and more brutal. Acts of religious violence have become an all-too-frequent story on the pages of the nation’s newspapers.

In almost every case the ‘SBY’ government has done nothing, choosing to stand back and let the violence and killings increase unchecked. Simultaneously a number of convicted terrorists have now been released from jail. This worries many Indonesians. It should also worry their neighbours-including Australia.

Arguably ‘SBY’ has been reluctant to take strong and decisive action against these groups for fear of alienating his government from the more fundamentalist organisations, but this has only allowed intolerance and violence to flourish. A real test case will be how long the radical Muslim leader, Abu Bakar Bashir, remains in jail on terrorism convictions.

Indonesia also faces huge challenges in addressing its infrastructure, including roads, power and ports, and driving the need to reform its outdated labour laws and skilling of its workforce.

And although Suharto may have been removed from power, there has been no thorough cleansing of his political influence including that of his family and political allies. The family’s wealth also remains intact and represents a war-chest available to fund political activities by Suharto allies and sympathisers including the Golkar party; all of whom have an interest in weakening SBY’s position. It is ironic that in 2014, when the next parliamentary and presidential elections will be held, Golkar may well emerge as the strongest single political party, and from within its ranks, the nation’s next President.

So can Egypt and Libya look to Indonesia as an example of how to achieve true democracy? Yes. But getting to where Indonesia is today doesn’t necessarily mean that it will only get easier from that point forward.

Whilst some of the more outspoken Indonesians are saying privately – with tongue-in-cheek - that perhaps Indonesia should be following Egypt and Libya; not the other way around, the reality is that for now, many believe Indonesia will fail to achieve the true, functioning and pluralistic democracy of which it is truly capable, and to which its North African cousins aspire, and instead will simply ‘muddle’ along and risk missing the golden opportunity that many commentators have touted for several years.

In the process, Indonesia risks leaving its own citizens frustrated and disappointed, and at the same time leaving the Western world to ponder what any transition to democracy in North Africa and the Middle East will really bring.