Communalism an integral part of Indonesian culture

Since his departure to work as a lecturer at Melbourne University almost a decade ago, sociologist Arief Budiman has rarely been in the Indonesian media. But his work here has been recognized by the Achmad Bakrie Foundation, which this Friday gave him an award for his contribution to social and economic discourse during the New Order. The scholar shared his views on Indonesia’s development with The Jakarta Post’s Adisti Sukma Sawitri.

Question: What has changed in the “dependency paradigm” — the phrase that you coined about Indonesia’s dependence on foreign investment and technology?

Answer: This paradigm has hardly changed. It has even intensified as global capitalism grows stronger, supported by better technology and capital.

Regime change and the emergence of democracy, however, have brought several developments. People have begun to reject foreign loans and want to rely more on domestic financial sources.

The structure of the bourgeois has also slightly changed. Rich people are not coming only from Chinese backgrounds and from Soeharto’s children and relatives. The middle classes are increasingly made up of young and brilliant executives that make their fortunes by working in multinational companies here. The increased chance to access capital and a broader range of skilled labor has helped more conglomerates emerge in the country.

That more people are becoming high-income earners is a good sign for a capitalist state like Indonesia because it is the way to spare the country from a social revolution.

So do you think Indonesia has been capitalist from the start?

Yes, it has been a “small capitalist” since the New Order era. Indonesia is capitalist in terms of its wide gap between the rich and poor, while capital is highly concentrated in the business community.

The government created policies that favored this community greatly in the past. And this still happens today, although the policies now benefit different groups of businesspeople.

Capitalist states always try to find a way to maintain their hegemony. During the New Order, Soeharto used the military to keep control. Now the government can’t do that anymore. That’s why it has tried to replace this kind of control by giving a form of insurance to the poor through several schemes such as the social security network (JPS) to the current direct cash aid (BLT) to replace the gradually phased out fuel subsidy.

However, this insurance is not really working for low-income people because the tax system can’t provide enough money for them and the government is failing to provide them with sufficient jobs.

In the United States and Australia, the government can take care of the jobless and try to put them to work because they have better tax systems, as well as a good bureaucracy.

What is still wrong with the government that is keeping things the same even after the demise of the New Order?

Our bureaucrats develop in a low salary environment, with low rewards and little respect for their jobs. They eventually make strong relationships with businesspeople because they are the ones who give them better rewards. Both parties strike a “good deal” by trading authority and money.

Another problem is our strong communal culture, which means job responsibilities are not defined clearly. Corruption in this country has grown in sophistication because of this culture.

So should we eradicate communalism to create a more modern and professional society?

Regarding communalism, of course not, because this is a basic value that has been shared for years. It is also the reason why the government’s failure to take care of the poor for so many years has not led to a large-scale social revolution.

Communalism ensures the poor are not completely left behind in a community because local leaders take care of them, although this care doesn’t make them significantly better off.

This is also why the poor have been in a state of ignorance for a long time. They don’t care about the rich people as long as they can make ends meet. This is the same reason why they have forgiven and forgotten Soeharto.

Calm and affirmative poor people cannot survive in countries like the U.S. or Australia. There they are totally neglected if governments are not involved.

So what is the best way to create change in Indonesia?

We must create a more efficient and rational bureaucracy system with a good reward and punishment system. Since the government’s budget is very limited, however, the change should be done in several law enforcement agencies first, involving judges, prosecutors and police officers.

If the government is still reluctant to do this, one opportunity for change is through an independent press in Indonesia. Journalists can help law enforcement bodies uncover corruption among government officials. We have to rely on a strong and idealist media that won’t be distracted or paid off.

I consider that the press in Indonesia is independent enough, and absolutely better than in Australia. The Australian press has been much criticized because of its bias toward businesspeople instead of normal citizens.

What about our dependence on foreign loans and international partnerships with multinational companies?

We have to be realistic that foreign intervention in our economy is unavoidable, but we have to consider the offers carefully and have more guts negotiating with big companies. We shouldn’t take all of their offers. For example, we must take a stand against them if the agreement threatens our small and medium enterprises. We have to support our SMEs by giving them chances to grow so that we can provide our people with better welfare.

As a country, Indonesia has a good bargaining position because we have a lot of natural resources to offer. We keep getting more disadvantaged in international loans and partnerships because of our low self-esteem, thinking that we have more to lose than they do. In fact, they need us at least as much as we need them.

A lot of international speculation in the form of investment in a country can lead to an overheated economy, when existing productive capacity grows at an uncontrolled rate and pushes up inflation and interest rates, leading to sluggish domestic investment and an economic slowdown. Still as capitalists, most multinational companies know they have to share their wealth with poor countries like Indonesia.

What do you think should be done to Soeharto?