THE HABIBIE CENTER DISCUSSION REPORT. No. 19/November 2015 TALKING ASEAN. The Dynamics and Future of Democracy in the ASEAN Region

Transcription

1 THE HABIBIE CENTER DISCUSSION REPORT No. 19/November 2015 TALKING ASEAN The Dynamics and Future of Democracy in the ASEAN Region Le Meridien Hotel, Jakarta 25 November, 2015

2 INTRODUCTION JAKARTA On Wednesday, 25 November 2015, The Habibie Center held a Talking ASEAN public dialogue entitled, The Dynamics and Future of Democracy in the ASEAN Region at Le Meridien, Jakarta. This particular edition of Talking ASEAN featured as resource persons Prof. Dr. Bridget Welsh (Senior Associate Fellow, The Habibie Center), Mr. Meidyatama Suryadiningrat (Chief Editor, The Jakarta Post), and Ms. Natalia Soebagjo (Chairwoman, Transparency International Indonesia), with Ms. Rahimah Abdulrahim (Executive Director, The Habibie Center) moderating. The objectives of this Talking ASEAN were: (a) to discuss the recent development of democratisation in Southeast Asia; and (b) to explore possible ways to further enhance democracy in Indonesia and broader Southeast Asia. This discussion report summarizes the key points of each speaker as well as the question and answer session that followed.

3 SPEAKERS PRESENTATION Prof. Dr. Bridget Welsh The first to speak at the Talking ASEAN public dialogue was Prof. Dr. Bridget Welsh. The most important points that she explained in her presentation were the major challenges of democratic government in the region and the areas that needed to be strengthened for democratic governance. She argued that the region was witnessing deepening contestations for democracy that there were many polarizations on this issue across the region. Referring to Freedom House data, she noted the broad trajectories of countries in the region that did not show any significant changes overall. However, there were notable changes within the society and in the area of politics. It was pointed out that only Indonesia, the Philippines, and Thailand were on the higher range for democracy. Prof. Dr. Bridget Welsh went on to note that there were a number of other problems too within the region. According to surveys, the number one concern among societies in ASEAN is corruption. In addition, leadership performance deficits were also a significant problem, especially in recent years. Leaderships across the region were seen as not connected with the people. Worryingly, Prof. Dr. Bridget Welsh highlighted the rising conducive authoritarian values that had been gaining ground in some areas. This was mainly because of authoritarian nostalgia such as was seen in Thailand and Indonesia. Prof. Dr. Bridget Welsh argued that research showed authoritarian nostalgia were receiving growing support. Prof. Dr. Bridget Welsh went on to discuss about deepening engagement with civil society in the region which had become increasingly transnational. This was supported by networking among stakeholders in the region. Also, there was an expansion of political life. Politics was moving outside of the election period. More people were involved in the political life and were providing solutions from the local level. A lot of this was supported by the use of internet and social media, even in Myanmar. Indeed, Prof. Dr. Bridget Welsh pointed out that Myanmar s internet penetration had now reached 25%. She further explained that Indonesia indeed would be very important to democracy in ASEAN, as well as in other sectors in the region. Indonesian leadership will be very important in this regard. While there was increasing critical citizens in Indonesia, it was also noted that 25-28% of the population wished for the return of authoritarian era. The dynamics within the region was also influenced by non-conducive international climate. The influence of China was highly felt by some countries in the region with some societies viewing China as a good role model. In this regard, Cambodia had the most positive views about China. Despite the above, there were some positive trends that should be noted. In Southeast Asia there was 25-30% of the population who could be categorized as critical citizens and were open to questioning and challenging the authorities. The number also grew over time in contrast to the rising support of authoritarianism. 1

4 SPEAKERS PRESENTATION Meidyatama Suryadiningrat The second resource person to speak was Mr. Meidyatama Suryadiningrat. He explained that it was hard to define democracy and questioned whether Indonesia, as the third largest democracy, was happier than Brunei Darussalam which did not have elections. He further asked if the Philippines had better governance than Singapore. Mr. Meidyatama argued that people perhaps mistook the moment of instability and weaknesses of authoritarian government as the rise of democratic values. Instead he suggested that the fall of Indonesia s strongman, Soeharto was more likely due to other factors rather than because of democracy reasons. In the Southeast Asia region, Indonesia was seen as an island of democracy in a sea of semiauthoritarian capitalist regime after Mr. Meidyatama pointed out that in Indonesia, there was a rising population who only knows the current democracy and had no experience of the New Order era. Indonesia was in good position, he argued, to be a cheerleader of democracy. This was different from democracy promoters because Indonesia was tied to the non-interference principle but nevertheless believed in the system. He further argued that for democracy promotion to be successful, it needed a model. Moreover it would also be intertwined with geopolitical reality. With the US as the main promoter, it was often difficult to differentiate between democracy and Western government. Mr. Meidyatama concluded his presentation by saying that democracy was not facing a stepback in the region and instead many elements were continuing the effort to to promote and maintain democracy. 2

5 SPEAKERS PRESENTATION Natalia Soebagjo Ms. Natalia Soebagjo was the last person to speak. She stated that Indonesia was indeed a role model for corruption eradication in the ASEAN region, notwithstanding Singapore. To support this view, Ms. Natalia pointed to the independent Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) which was highly respected. local regions which were becoming more and more confident, and showing good results. She however acknowledged the eradicating corruption was a never ending battle as achieving zero corruption was impossible. What was achievable was to narrow down the room for corruption. Ms. Natalia argued that the fate of democracy depended on the success of cleaning up the system from corruption. Ms. Natalia went on to refer to Freedom House which had described Indonesia as a hybrid democracy. According to The Economist, Indonesia was doing well in term of democracy. However, the quality of politics left much to be desired. Ms. Natalia expressed her hope that the upcoming regional elections would be another milestone in the progress of democracy in the region. She argued that the challenge of democracy was to create a genuine democratic system which was not transactional in nature. The current government of President Joko Widodo was trying to place this matter as one of its main priorities but Ms. Natalia suggested the process was challenging. As such, while President Widodo might know what he wanted, his government still seemed ineffective at times. Ms. Natalia cited the fact that although the President could have picked up on a number of important issues, he often did not take any actions. Democratic consolidation depended very much on the role of civil society and media. In this regard, Ms. Natalia expressed her disappointment that lately the media especially TV stations and newspapers had largely aligned themselves to certain political actors with certain political interests. She went on to argue that changes from below can be more effective, especially when changes from the top proved to be difficult. For example, Ms. Natalia pointed to the progress being made in Indonesia s 3

6 Q&A SESSION there is still an element of fear. From what I see, President Widodo is focusing on domestic issues and believes that for too long we have overlooked Indonesia s national wealth. Rahimah Abdulrahim - Executive Director The Habibie Center moderates the Q&A session. Comment No. 1 What would be your response to the issue of vote buying which arguably still takes place in Indonesia and elsewhere in the region? How can we address this problem? Comment No. 2 In the medium term, which side will win: the authoritarian forces or the growing critical citizens? If Indonesia is a flawed democracy, then what is an unflawed democracy? Are there any examples? Also there seems to be a growing economic nationalism in this region which is of concern for us in Europe. I believe in actual fact, economic nationalism is just another word for protectionism. This is not a sign of confidence but fear of competition. Natalia Subagjo Fear of competition or confidence is like glass half empty or half full. We believe we are one of the most competitive economies but admittedly Meidyatama Suryodiningrat There are many ways to conduct elections. In this regard funding is not the only issue. The key is whether everyone involved in election will have equal access to the resources (media, information etc). Regardless of what terms we want to described Indonesia s democracy ( flawed or unflawed ), we can say that Indonesia is a very fun democracy. For example, I can say what I want as a journalist, although admittedly I was involved in an allegation of blasphemy. Nevertheless we have free and fair elections which continue to change. In ASEAN, civil society is connected with each other. We don t need governments pushing civil society. For example, for AICHR (ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights), Indonesia s Ministry of Foreign Affairs opens its candidate for its representative to the public. Prof. Dr. Bridget Welsh With regards to economic nationalism, it will come down to how the economy is performing and will there be deliverables for societies. One has to make the distinction between Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam. Vote buying does not work in places like Indonesia because there is not enough resources to buy votes from such a large population. Most of the time, voters take the money and other goods, but still vote according to their own intentions. It is very interesting to look at Timor-Leste and ask why they are still not accepted in ASEAN. I believe the reason is because admitting Timor- Leste to the regional group would add another democracy to the group. Another point I would like to make is that ASEAN will face a major test when Laos becomes the 4

7 Q&A SESSION chairman next year. It is worrying that Laos has refused to have any engagement with civil society and will not be holding the ASEAN Civil Society Forum/ASEAN People s Forum. Comment No. 3 Is Indonesia truly the 3 rd largest democracy in the region? Is ASEAN going in the right direction? Based on the recent ASEAN Summit, what should ASEAN countries do to protect and promote human rights and gender equality? Regarding the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), we should not be too worried about it. 90% of issues related to the AEC have actually been implemented for years now. There will be more competition, but it is only about competition in certain industries. What we need to worry about is the issue of services as we are behind in terms of service industry. ---END--- Comment No. 4 In terms of policy advice, how can non-asean countries help promote democracy in Southeast Asia? Comment No. 5 When we look at the EU, we see there are many institutions and mechanisms to implement the single market there. Are there any mechanisms to prepare countries for the implementation of the ASEAN Economic Community in ASEAN? Prof. Dr. Bridget Welsh The trajectory for women participations across ASEAN with the exception of Myanmar is pretty good. If you want to focus on women s rights you have to work with the policy implementer. Meidyatama Suryodiningrat On the issue of women, the biggest problem about women in democracy in Indonesia is the women. I do not support the affirmative action as I think realistically we cannot fulfill the percentage required. The more important question is how to better build capacity for women. 5

8 6

9 PROJECT SUPERVISOR: Rahimah Abdulrahim (Executive Director) Hadi Kuntjara (Deputy Director for Operations) HEAD OF ASEAN STUDIES PROGRAM: A. Ibrahim Almuttaqi RESEARCHERS: Fina Astriana Muhamad Arif Askabea Fadhilla HEAD OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: Wirya Adiwena FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION: Mila Oktaviani Layout and Design by Rahma Simamora ASEAN Studies Program - The Habibie Center The Habibie Center Building Jl. Kemang Selatan No.98, Jakarta Tel: Fax: thc@habibiecenter.or.id

10