E38: Indonesia's 21-year Transition to Democracy

Indonesia In-depth

Indonesia began its transition to democracy in 1998 amid a simultaneous political, social and economic crisis. While the country has made tremendous progress with important economic and political reforms, Indonesia continues to remain in a democratic transition today.

At an Indonesinist live event hosted by the Indonesian Ministry of Foreign Affairs October 14-16, 2019, Indonesia Army (ret.) Lt. Gen. Agus Widjojo, senior journalist Dr. Michael Vatikiotis, Ambassador Dr. Siswo Pramono and Shawn Corrigan from the Indonesia In-depth Podcast, discuss Indonesia’s path to democracy and the challenges that remain. Below are the main talking points from the speakers :

Lt. Gen. Agus Widjojo: Understanding Indonesia from its transition to democracy

• Where does Indonesia come from: Indonesia’s current democracy cannot be separated from its democratic transition. In fact, it is still in its democratic transition even if we started our political reform in 1998-1999. It’s up to the Indonesian society on when we finally decide on the fact that we are no longer in democratic transition but democratic consolidation.

• The criteria is based off of when democracy is the “only game in town,” then we have passed the democratic transition. If you have seen what’s on the news, not everyone in Indonesia believes that democracy is the only “game in town”. Some people still believe that the solution to political differences is to mobilize the masses by intimidation and political pressure, etc. That’s why Indonesia is still in a democratic transition, which becomes a challenge when we want to go from democracy in a procedural sense into a substantive democracy.

• The role of the military in the Indonesian democratic transition is also substantive. The reform of the military made significant contribution to the democratic transition of Indonesia. It was a self-initiated military reform. It was voluntarily initiated by the military themselves. That’s why it did not create much of a clash because the political elites were too busy with themselves trying to find a replacement for their political system when President Soeharto resigned.

• They forgot to “mock” the military but Indonesia was lucky to have a polite military, sometimes too polite. Instead of seizing the opportunity during the political vacuum, they decided to think about the future of Indonesia when Indonesia became a democracy, in which the issue is what will be the professional role of the military and whether the political role of the military will still be valid in the future of Indonesian democracy. That’s what the military thought to themselves to have a professional role when Indonesia becomes more democratic. That’s why it is a self-initiated reform.

• The traditional culture of the Indonesian people is important. Is it right for our culture to be a paternalistic culture? It is right for most of the eastern cultures. There is a tendency to rely on leaders. We just cannot live without leaders. The basis of our traditional culture is because of sultans and kings so we always looked up to the kings and we always ended up looking for a king. We cannot live without a king. So we tend to look for leaders.

• Actually, we are more comfortable under authority because of the belief that the king has a divine right to rule given by god and everything the king decides will also be good for the people. That’s his opinion on the traditional belief of the people in this transitional culture.

• However, that does not automatically conform in a democratic culture, where in democratic culture, it is the individuality that is concerned. We have to promote ourselves from a paternalistic and communitarian culture into an individualistic culture.

• But that’s not enough. Individualism without responsibility can lead into anarchy. Thus we must strive for one level higher and that is to have responsible individuality, which is a daunting task for education in the society. Basically, that is what the Indonesian society is like right now.

• It’s a matter of competition between culture and democracy. Additionally, when we expect leaders, we expect perfect leaders and we expect perfect leaders to be delivered by the process of democracy, in which democracy never promises that. This is a misexpectation as most of the people expect that perfect leaders to be from the process of democracy where in democracy, if they have to take a side between popularity and competence with perfect leaders. Democracy will take side with popularity. That is like lightning in the afternoon for the Indonesian society and with some elements in the society that is unaware of that yet.

• Why is it that democracy has to take side with popularity? That’s because the soul of democracy is people’s sovereignty, which means that every presidential election is not to elect the brightest or the most competent president. We are looking for the person who has the legality to say that “I represent the aspirations of the people.”

• What are the other challenges for the Indonesian democracy? First is in a race between globalization as the meaning of the eroding influence of national sovereignty in the cyberworld. Currently in the time of globalization, when we say the “eroding borders of national sovereignty.” This does not mean physical geographical borders, it means in the cyberworld. This means that every country cannot just decide for themselves what they think is best for their interest. There is always an open border between the national interest and the international values.

• What we are not aware of is that any nation or country is open to global competition in the sense of ideology and culture. So there is always a competition of ideas. That is what we’re seeing, not only in Indonesia, but also in the world.

• What are the ways forward? We are lucky that we have our national values as our national capital. Indonesia’s diversity is our historical legacy. It can be a strength but, if it’s not properly managed, it can be a challenge. Based on that, we can also see in history that Indonesia is a nation based on consensus. Islam came here not by occupying the land, for example. Also,1908-1928, nationalism was based on consensus. The national language of Indonesia is not based on the largest ethnic Javanese group but it is based on the consensus for the language to be spoken.

• We also have lessons to be taken from history is that human capital is the focus of national development when it's coming in 5 years.

• The way forward is the challenge of strengthening and deepening our democracy, which is by strengthening our national system, strengthening of the political institutions, development of the political parties, and most importantly, the underlying foundation of all those efforts is education - general education and political education.

Shawn Corrigan: Indonesia’s Transformation from an Authoritarian System to a Democracy

• The topic today is about strengthening democracy and to really think about what that means, you have to have a starting point to measure it.

• For me, it goes back to 1997, when I was a student in the University of Indonesia studying Bahasa Indonesia. It also starts there for me because that was the beginning of the Asian Financial Crisis, which hit many countries in Southeast Asia, including Indonesia.

• Snap shot of Indonesia 1997- To briefly set the scene of how Indonesia was like at the time in 1997, it was very different from today. At that time you had President Soeharto was in power for almost 32 years. There were three political parties, there are 10 now. There was stability that society and the business community enjoyed for a long time. Basic food supplies were stable. Then, very quickly, the financial crisis in Thailand put a stress test on most of the economies in Southeast Asia, particularly in Indonesia and other countries, which quickly led to the depreciation in the Rupiah, which went from IDR 2,200 for US$1, all the way down to IDR 16,500 very quickly. As a result, there were difficulties in importing goods, difficult to ensure a supply of basic goods, a collapse of the banking system and so on.

• Then, that led to widespread demonstrations of university students throughout the country, particularly in Jakarta. The pinnacle was in May 1998, where at least four students were shot and killed, which led to riots and chaos throughout the city and other parts of the country as well.

• Soeharto’s Downfall - Eventually, it led to the downfall of President Soeharto who later resigned amid turmoil. The culture of needing a leader is very important here. Overnight that leader quickly disappeared from the scene. So you had someone who was around for 32 years, a lifetime for some people, and then was gone the next day.

• Military Relinquishes Dual Function Role - Immediately after that, there were reforms that took place to move the country forward. I think that one of the major reformers at that time, was Lt. Gen. Agus Widjojo, who in 1998 began thinking about how to bring the military forces out of their Dual Function, which was not only focused on defense and also a social-political role, which was involved in almost all of the daily activities throughout the country down to the village level.

• Immediately in the span of a few years, with the leadership of General Agus, the military began reforms and then they were preparing to leave parliament. This was because the military and the police had factions inside parliament and held around 20% or so of seats. It is a very powerful force inside parliament and the decision making process in parliament back then was very different. Back in 2000, people believed that the military would never give up that power and role, but they did.

• By 2004, the military left the parliament and was able to begin building a professional force. At that time, Indonesia had its first democratic elections since 1955. They weren’t completely free and fair but they were very good considering democratic elections were a new process.

• Four Presidents in Four Years - After that, you have four presidents in four years.Imagine, four presidents in four years! Think about that! There were major changes happening along with great instability. Simultaneously, there was ethnic, religious and sectarian violence in many regions of the country. At that time, people thought that Indonesia would become like Yugoslavia and would break up to many different countries. It was close to that at some point. There were conflicts in Aceh, Sulawesi, Papua and Poso. At the same time of all this, you have the military leaving parliament during a time of great instability and conflicts happening.

• After the fall of Soeharto, a lot of people started thinking that maybe democracy is not the best system for Indonesia, since there were all these problems and they needed a leader. Shortly, people started thinking whether they should go back to a system like Soeharto. “At least we had stability and basic food commodities under Soeharto,” many people said back then.

• Decentralization Begins - While all this instability is happening, the process of decentralization begins in Indonesia 1999 or 2000. Prior to this, the central government in Jakarta controlled almost everything in Indonesia. It was top down. The local governments would just take orders from the central government. It’s a massive undertaking to undergo decentralization, especially in a large country like this, in addition to being an archipelago and at a time of rapid change. Decentralization has been a long process but has made great strides but it’s still a work in progress and not perfect.

• First Direct Elections - Fortunately, in 2004 you have the first direct election in Indonesia which brought in President Yudhoyono. President Yudhoyono came in for 10 years and brought stability. Then, you have President Widodo elected in 2014.

• First Ever Democratic Presidential Transition - I think it is really important to remember since the reform started in early 1998, only in 2014 did you finally have the first ever democratic presidential transition in the country’s history. That was just five years ago. Think about that. If you look back, there was President Soekarno then General Soeharto came in as president under unclear circumstances since there wasn’t an election at the time. Finally, you have a democratic transition for the first time only five years ago, which is important to remember.

• Indonesians Can Face New Challenges If They Want To: I’m not a person that thinks that there are no issues in Indonesia and always glass half full type of person, there are a lot of issues that need to be fixed in Indonesia, many mistakes were made and a lot more work needs to be done. It’s a daunting task. I’m happy to breakdown what those issues are and what needs to be done but, I think what Indonesia has accomplished in 21 years has been incredible and I think they can make the changes that are needed going forward, if they want to.

Michael Vatikiotis: Challenges on Strengthening Democracy

• Need to Prevent Backslide - One of the most pressing concerns of our age is how to protect and preserve the fundamentals of the democratic system of government. For a very long time, nations in this part of the world and elsewhere, have struggled to establish and nurture democracy. But now, this transition and reform movements have occurred, and throughout all the loss and pain that was involved, I think the challenge today is to prevent backslide and regression.

• We are still in transition, as Pak Agus said, moving from a procedural democracy to a substantive democracy.

• There are two distinct challenges:

The first, which is a problem that plagues the world, is growing inequality.

The second, related to that, is the rise of identity politics.

• Indonesia Was Established As A Democracy in 1945 - First, a little bit of history, Indonesia, where people at times forget, was established as a democracy in 1945. The founders of the Republic of Indonesia envisaged a nation of diverse elements of society with equal rights governed by an elected leader. It was not established as an authoritarian state. Many people from around the world look up to the history of Indonesia as it was established by a struggle against colonialism.

• Threat To Unity & Strong Leadership - This idealistic vision proved very hard to establish as in the early years of the republic were marred by divisive politics, fractious ideology and revolt. Faced with the threat of disintegration in the 1960s, authoritarian tendencies prevailed and the army stepped in to enforce order. What followed was three decades of strong leadership backed by military power. Indonesia’s economy grew and society developed but the people yearned for more freedom. Abuses of power and rising levels of nepotism and corruption weaken the government, which fell after a short but violent expression of protests in 1998.

• 20-year Transition - Thus followed, 20 years of transition, we like to call it as transition but I’m not always comfortable with that term, and reform. The three key reforms, in my view, were:

• Free speech and respect for human rights

• Decentralization and local autonomy

• The direct election of the president

• Risk of Democratic Regression - These reforms have underpinned the expression of democratic government in Indonesia. However, over the last few years, there’s been a few setbacks. Many people now believe that there is a risk of democratic regression. One reason for the setback stems from the success of Indonesia’s democracy itself. Competitive politics has become well-established. As we heard, we have elected presidents every five years or presidents who were re-elected and regular elections were held in all levels of representation.

• The problem is that politicians seeking to be elected has resorted to exploiting aspects of race and religion in order to look for votes. This in turn has unfortunately polarized society and generated fear of conflict. And this fear has started to erode trust in Indonesia’s democracy. So it’s a vicious cycle. The more that politicians seek to look for votes used in the basis of race and religion, the more people would feel destabilized and fear that they need to have security and order imposed to prevent society from disintegrating.

• This was very much the feeling in the last election in April where the country was rather polarized at the ballot box. Yes, President Joko Widodo won a plurality of votes but it was a slim margin and the opposition won in many areas using Islam as the basis for their appeal of votes.

• Risks & Dangers - Of course that is exactly what happened in the mid-1960s, after religious and ideological polarization divided the country. And that’s why I argued that in some senses we are entering a dangerous period again in Indonesia.

• There are other risks as well, political parties, as we heard, have failed to create constructive programs and have little sense of direction. The parliament is widely regarded as corrupt and unrepresentative. That’s why over the past few weeks, we’ve seen very intensive rounds of student demonstrations. The army and the police are competing for primacy in the security sector and religious zealots and conservatives seek to derail Indonesia’s pluralistic and tolerant society. These are what I think are the dangers.

• How To Strengthen Democracy? - So, how do we strengthen and protect Indonesia’s democracy? Perhaps, we should take note of the challenges faced by democracies everywhere. Growing social divide and income inequality has generated disillusionment with elected government, which are viewed to be dominated by privileged elites, unresponsive to people’s needs and many people have taken refuge in religious belief and some have become susceptible to idealistic visions of exclusive orthodoxy based on tribe, religion and race. This is not unfamiliar to many of you and the countries you come from.

• But in Indonesia, with its large and diverse population, they must avoid pitfalls and risk of descending into polarizing violent conflict that would divide the country.

• 5 Ways to Protect Democracy - Here are the five ways to protect Indonesia’s democracy:

• 1st: promote a culture of dialog. Dialog is not a panacea. It’s a start. It’s a beginning. All too often differences are viewed through the prism of the threat to establish authority. So it’s very important that differences should be channeled through constructive dialog to modify positions and interests to bridge divides.

• 2nd: address social and economic inequality. To strive for a fair share of wealth and income helps in part, the fruits of democratic government. To see the social and economic divide widen is to invite protests and disorder that leads above all to the abuse of power. Therefore, steps are needed to spread the wealth and provide an effective path to social and economic mobility. This is not easy. No government finds this easy, especially in this part of the world.

• 3rd: it is important to revise the notion of what the parliament does and to reform the way it does it. Indonesia has struggled to provide the right balance between representation and leadership. Many Indonesians believe that enlightened and charismatic leadership is the key to democratic government. As Pak Agus said, we cannot live without a king or a leader. But it is important that leaders should be made accountable. However freely they are chosen or however popular they are and this means that the parliament has to be strong enough to credibly and responsibly hold leaders to account.

• 4th: it is important to regulate and monitor religious education and proslitation. The vision of Indonesia as a pluralistic nation of unity in diversity is under threat from visions of the state as dominantly and exclusively an Islamic state. This leads ultimately to the erosion of democratic freedoms, as seen by the current debate of the criminal code in the parliament. And rather than battle over legislation, the real struggle is to control the extent to which people are brainwashed by extremist or intolerant visions of society. Back to the education system.

• 5th: it is important to establish a vision of Indonesia based on the founding principles of the republic. Indonesia’s founding fathers in 1945 knew that this struggle for freedom needed to be anchored in a vision under a nation underpinned by the principles that balance the ethnic and religious forces the diversity in the archipelago with an overarching frame of togetherness, unity and diversity. This became hard when the state philosophy, Pancasila, as it’s called, was hijacked for the purpose of concentrating power in the hands of the few. It was treated as a mechanism of imposing conformity during the authoritarian period. So many people have memories of the state philosophy as a tool for imposing conformity, rather than a philosophy that everyone should live by. But Pancasila remains an important tool for protecting democracy and I think it must be revived and it must be restored.

Siswo Pramono: Asia’s Role in the Global Order

• Shifting Power- ASEAN has been growing in the global community where there might be a shift in the global order. The economic power, and soon the political power, will be shifted to East Asia, including India. These countries will be able to determine the norms that are in place.

• Assessing National Power- The changes in norms is considered inevitable, especially with the rise and fall of big power structures. Classical International Relations theories have a way to measure power index based on Morgenthau’s theory, which factors in nine main elements of national power. The elements that he identified were geography, natural resources, industrial capacity, military preparedness, population, national character, national morale, the quality of diplomacy, and the quality of government. Despite that fact, there are also new ways to assess national power by referring to Lowly Institute of Australia, which are economic resources, military capability, resilience, future resources, diplomatic influence, economic relationships, defence networks, especially cultural influence. For example, pop culture in Korea.

• Largest Economic Block- The numbers alone can testify how much Asia is growing in terms of economic power. East Asia will soon conclude the RCEP or Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership and thus will become the largest economic bloc in the world. If we see the GDP of East Asia, it amounts to 23 trillion USD. In comparison with the EU, it only amounts to 16 trillion.

• The biggest determining factor is the fact that the population in East Asia is 3.5 billion and that is much larger than North America, which only has a half billion and the EU, which only has a half billion and they are mostly an aging group. East Asia will dominate as there are mostly young people as the demographic bonus happens in Indonesia and India.

• Economic Integration = Peace - East Asia is economically integrated as well since their principle is that the market of people they target is the countries surrounding them. Therefore, no country in East Asia would want to cause any trouble with their neighboring countries because they directly benefit them in terms of the market. This is evident as East Asia was able to maintain peace amongst each other for the last 50 years but that is different for countries like the Middle East where their trading partner is not their neighboring country. For example, Saudi Arabia’s trading partner is China, not Egypt and Turkey’s main trading partner is the EU, not Syria. Based on this, we can see that economic integration is a good method to maintain peace amongst the different countries as this could heavily impact their own market.

• New Type of Democracy - Other than that, Asia is so diverse in comparison to the West. This is also one particular thing that we need to observe in the near future. Because the rise of Asia will mean there is a new kind of democracy. You can observe how diverse East is as the largest democracy is in India and they have their foundation in Hinduism. Although Indonesia is a particularly young democracy, it has a large Muslim community, even to the very old democracy in Japan with Shintoism. This is the first time that you see democracy that does not follow the Western ideology of Christendom democracy.

• ASEAN - Other than that, we also have diverse democratic structures. Vietnam has a single party system, Malaysia and Brunei follow the Shariah system, and the Philippines has a liberal democracy. Although ASEAN has different countries following different systems, they are still united. Despite the fact, there is still no common value in ASEAN yet, we will see that the future will unite ASEAN with a common interest as the economy continues to grow and interact between each members.

• Due to how well-integrated ASEAN members are in trading, the next generation based on the demographic bonus will be able to navigate through the new global landscape. This is also true for Africa and Latin America. It is key that the new generation of Indonesianist will be able to guide us in the new global context.

• Ancient Civilizations - We are actually closer and more integrated than you thought. China and India, the two oldest civilizations, have been around for 5,000 years. With this, you can see that it is not a surprise for the rise in China right now especially if we’ve been with them for over 2,000 years. It is also evident from the mosques you see here in Indonesia. The first mosque that was built during the transition from Hinduism to Islam has Chinese and Arabic characters in them because a lot of Muslims come from the Southern part of China.

• Asian In the next 10 years, we hope to see Asia reach out and have more dialogue with Africa, Latin America, North America, Europe and Oceania to see how the global landscape will have a new rule that it is not unique to Asia. We also must be open to contributions made by Western Europe to create inclusivity from all regions to truly have a global mindset.

• Democratic Values Adapted Locally- Although this rise of Asia in the economy contributes to the rise of Asian democracy, we must be aware that these universal values but still adapted locally. Similar to how you would plant an apple tree from Europe, you would take a seed from Europe and plant it in Indonesia, and then the apple will grow in Asian soil. This is the Asia democracy, where the idea can be taken from everywhere but localize based on our customs and traditions. It is true for Japan and true for Indonesia as well as in India.

• Biodiversity, politics and democracy will become key to development. We’re reaching the point that democracy is not from the West but with the rise of Asia since there is good governance and that democracy will be integrated with some universal value yet local implementation.

Q&A from the Audience

Q1. For Agus Widjojo: During the democratic transition phase, what are some of the major challenges in separating the role of the military to focus purely on defense and give way for civilian politics? What are some of these challenges and how are these challenges overcome?

Agus: For Indonesia, it was not a planned change. It was a situation where we had to take a sudden opportunity, where practically the nation and the political elites were taken by surprise. There were no indicators or signs where President Soeharto intended to resign so it was a matter of taking an opportunity.

Firstly, because it was a self-initiated reform by the military and with the least intervention from the push and pull of political interest, it was relatively easy for the military because they know what should be performed to prepare themselves for the incoming full-blown democracy and what are the static values that we have to maintain within the military. Secondly, I think this is universal and we did not have much time for that, to prepare the effectiveness of those replacing the institutions who in the following sequence will take over the roles of the military, where it was conducted by the military in the past.

I think that would also enter the general challenges of a new democracy. How to establish an effective civilian authority and I think that’s what we call the real meaning of transition. Until now, we are still seeing or waiting for an effective civilian political authority, or, is there a new challenge that we are facing that is just the characteristics of a democracy. Democracy never promised a final situation where they say that democracy provides all the answers. It will be a continuous process. Democracy is a process orientated system, where our culture is always looking for results.

Other than structural challenges, there are also cultural challenges that we have to face to make ourselves familiar with the characteristics and the culture of democracy.

Shawn: Looking back at that opportunity, as Pak Agus mentioned, of having the military remove itself from parliament or the Dual Function that they’ve had for around 50 years. I think it can’t be overstated how important that was and how difficult it was as well, as how Pak Agus took advantage of that rare opportunity and was a driving force of how the military removed itself from the socio-political role. I recalled very clearly at the time of people saying, “There’s no way the military would leave parliament. It’s not in their interest, they have been there for over 50 years. They have a lot of power. Why would they ever give that up? It’s never going to happen.” Eventually they did in less than 4-5 years. It happened very quickly in a period where they have been there for 50 years and also the fact that you had the lawmakers who weren’t exactly an independent-thinking body. You had the lawmakers who were elected and then you had the TNI and the police faction who were self-appointed. But, when the military left, that sort of left the vacuum of “They’re on their own now to run the parliament.”

I just think that the military’s decision to withdraw themselves from parliament, as a result of individuals such as General Agus, cannot be overstated. People at the time thought that President Soeharto would even come back because of the chaos, the violence and chaotic things happening. If you had to look at countries such as Myanmar, where the military controls 25% of the seats in parliament since the reform process has started there back in 2011-2012, there no plans right now for the military to leave parliament. I think what is being done with the military right now should be praised and I think it was a very difficult time and a very courageous move. I think it is a very important move for the direction of democracy in Indonesia.

Q2. What is the impact to Indonesia to combine qualitative and quantitative methods in analyzing local politics and emphasize the importance of citizen-led approach for democracy?

Michael: That’s a very good question. It refers to both Pak Agus and I when referring to the tendency of people to rely on their leaders too much. I believe that, and maybe Shawn has a view on this as well, actually the citizen-led democracy is increasingly emerging because of the availability of technology that connects communities more easily to governments and to individuals. I see emerging in Southeast Asia, where we live in countries like Indonesia and where I visited such as Thailand, Cambodia, and Myanmar. That increasing ability to connect to one another and discuss or have access to information about critical issues that affect them is promoting citizen-led democracy. Now, we hear a lot of problems from social media generating polarization and hate speech but sometimes we have to appreciate the positive side of being connected through mobile phones and social media platforms. I know that people, for instance, use these platforms in fishing communities to have better access to information and to be able to have the ability to communicate to local governments about their needs. So I think technology for me is the key to enabling more citizen-led democracies.

Siswo: All democracies should be citizen-led initially. To reach that quality, we need to at least have certain elements that is participation and in the case of Indonesia, the number turned up to about 80% of the eligible voters. So this is really good. The last general election was about 74% and now we have 80%.

However, participation is not enough. What we also need is political education. That is what Michael has been saying as well. Political education is supposed to be the main job of political parties. Political parties should not only engage in a power struggle but also the most important thing is political education. Now, when political parties are more involved in identity politics, this is not a good political education. Political parties and universities are places to debate because face to face discussion regarding matters relating to politics will help you reach political maturity. Political maturity is very important because then you can see which one is considered fake news or propaganda. We don’t only need political knowledge but also political maturity. This can only be attained if you have more debate in various matters about democracy like the one we have today.

Q3. For Agus Widjojo: How do you deal with the problems of democracy that are always swayed with religion?

Agus: That would be a subject to be decided by the nation - by the people themselves. To develop what is really the relationship between the state and the religion because in religion, we have absolute truth. For those people who really abide by the rules of the specific religion, those absolute truths cannot be discussed with other religions. What exists between religion and the people who deals with different religions is respect. Whereas, in society, we have relative truths where everything can be discussed and where people can have different opinions in a common ground. In religion, we don’t have a common ground. We don’t mix with one religion and another. We also don’t mix between absolute truths and relative truths but to draw the line where absolute truth has to be detained in that space. So that when we go out to the society, we will be facing relative truths where everything can be discussed, except the absolute truth. I think it is those disciplines that we have to establish as rules of the game and it is also by the consensus of the people.

But right now, is there really a political arrangement that is free from religious values? I don’t think there is. Because even in the US, there are recommendations and influences of religious values which are to be inserted as part of the content of the constitution of the State. For instance, abortion, LGBT, etc. So there is always a way, as long as if you want to insert those religious values into the worldly or state arrangement, it has to be done by the principles of democracy and not by force or adding pressure to other people.

Q4. What are the challenges for traditional institutions to transform into democracy? For example, religion such as Islam, you have to keep old tradition but in democracy, you have to practice modern thought such as human rights and other civil rights.

Michael: It goes to the heart of the main challenges we’ve been talking about and it affects countries like Myanmar as much as it affects Indonesia, where you have traditions. Religion is not only in the sense of dogma but religion in a way that influences society. Of course, in the Buddhist tradition in Myanmar and the Muslim tradition in Indonesia, there are strong links to society and the way that society is affected by religious beliefs.

I think one of the main problems we have seen over the last 30 years is not what to do with the relationship between religion and democracy and rights, but to the extent to which people’s beliefs have changed because of the challenges they faced everyday. To give an example, I’ve conducted a dialog with Buddhist monks and I’ve asked them what has happened in relation to Rakhine state vis-a-vis the Muslims who live there. I asked, “What is your problem with Muslims?” They said, “Historically, we don’t have a problem with Muslims. But Muslims have changed. They have become more exclusive.” And I think what we have seen in many societies is that as religious belief becomes more exclusive or there is more piety or orthodoxy, people start to think that they should protect the boundaries between different religions.

So you see in Indonesia, you never have a problem in many towns or villages where you have mosques and churches in the same place. But there has been more disputes in Indonesia over whether or not a church has the right to exist next to a mosque. Because people are creating divisions between the religions. Because they are taught unfortunately that religions are more exclusive and this, I think, erodes degrees of tolerance.

So I think, it’s easy to blame the politicians because they have used religion and they have helped contribute to this but I think also worldwide, we have seen a rise in religious orthodoxy and belief which is probably a reflection of insecurity more than anything else. The fear whether it’s social or economic factors but also the fear of “the other” as we’ve seen in Myanmar. And also political manipulation.

So it is a mixture of these factors that make it difficult to get to your question. To actually make these institutions of democracy, whether it’s the parliament, or political parties, or in which the way politicians conduct themselves. It suggests there needs to be stricter rules and regulations to prevent this polarization, hate speech and divisions that occur between religions.

It is a serious problem in Southeast Asia because this is the part of the world where people with different religions live very closely together in the same town, in the same village, in the same community. In the Middle East and in many parts of the world, people live in separate communities but in this part of the world, people live very closely together. So it is a very critical issue and you have the right to raise it.

Agus: First of all, Indonesians come from a traditional society, we inherit many values from the past, where it was possible to practice it in the full meaning of those values. Then, to enter in the democratic Indonesia, our challenge is to try to draw the principles and intrinsic values. To try to find the instrumental values of the past to be implemented to Indonesia, which has already changed to a modern and democratic country. That is the first challenge in general.

But there are instances where there are also components of the society where we cannot integrate everything all at once. So there is a gradual process before we adopt an inclusive democracy. For instance, the tribes of Papua, we just cannot involve them into an inclusive democracy in our general election. We cannot go to them and practice a one-man-one-vote system. So specifically with Papuan tribes, we ask the leader of the tribes, “What are your preferences? How do you vote? How would you like to cast your vote?” But this is actually a strategic temporary case before in the end, we can accommodate them into an Indonesian inclusive national democracy.

But we also have instances around the world on how to segregate or divide between traditional values and democracy. That is similar to a constitutional monarchy. Japan, for example, is able to retain and maintain their traditional values very well but at the same time, they practice democracy in their political arrangement. There is a line to be drawn between traditional values and principles of democracy in the domain where it is a competition for political power through constitutional arrangement, though the two cannot be mixed between one and the other.

Episode Description

Podcast hosts: Shawn & Tanita

Email:[e-mail]

Twitter: @IndoIndepth

LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/shawn-corrigan/

We are also available on Spotify, iTunes, Soundcloud, Google Music and other podcast players!

Music and sound effects licensed.

---

Special thanks to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for inviting us and to Lt. Gen Agus Widjojo, Dr. Michael Vatikiotis, Dr. Siswo Pramono and Shawn Corrigan.