Democracy Without a Name

On several occasions, President Prabowo Subianto has often expressed the discourse on the need for a uniquely Indonesian democracy, namely a system of governance deeply rooted in the values and traditions of the nation's ancestors.

This type of democracy is assumed not to replicate verbatim the construct of democracy in any part of the world, especially the liberal-secular Western democracy. More specifically, Prabowo seeks to emphasize that our democracy does not necessarily have to institutionalize the practice of opposition politics.

Prabowo's argument is based on the philosophy of harmony, togetherness, and mutual cooperation, which are the identity of this nation. According to Prabowo, building Indonesia must be carried out in a harmonious, unified, and mutually supportive political orchestration.

The tradition of opposition politics that undermines one another is considered an antinomy or antithesis to the noble values of the nation. Prabowo prefers the terminology of competition rather than opposition. The question is, is there something that can be called a democracy unique to Indonesia? Should democracy have a "host"? Isn't democracy universal?

The debate about whether or not a specific country-specific democratic construct is necessary reminds us of the debate among political scientists about democracy with adjectives.

David Collier and Steven Levitsky (1997) in their article, "Democracy with Adjectives", emphasized that the addition of adjectives after the word democracy is nothing more than a sublimation policy by a regime to cover up the regime's inability to implement the ideal "full-fledged democracy".

In their view, the increasing number and variety of adjectives attributed to the face of democracy in various countries actually reflect a condition of democracy that is neither ideal nor perfect.

This means that there are deviations, discrepancies and anomalies between the ideal-normative conditions of democracy and the real conditions of democracy that are practiced.

The variations of democracy in those countries are only bound by the minimalist requirements of democracy, namely regular electoral competition (general elections/regional head elections). Nothing more than that.

In many ways, the attribution of a number of adjectives to democracy actually depicts an oxymoron condition within the body of democracy itself. That is, there is a contradiction within itself (contradiction in terms) when the word democracy is juxtaposed with a number of the adjectives in question.

For example, there are “illiberal democracy” (Fareed Zakaria, 1997), “authoritarian democracy” (Brancati, 2014), “delegative democracy” (O’Donnell, 1994), “hybrid democracy” (Diamond, 2002), “autocratic democracy” (Schmidt, 2016), “neopatrimonial democracy” (Sigman, 2019), “military democracy,” and “protodemocracy.” In short, democracy with adjectives is not real democracy.

The attribution of democracy with various oxymoronic adjectives above indicates that the concept of democracy is understood and practiced differently in many countries.

This kind of reality merely confirms that democracy is still an essentially contested concept for many people (Gallie, 1956). As a result, its meaning tends to be vague, ambiguous, and even confusing.

In Indonesia, the attribution of democracy with various adjectives has actually occurred in the history of this nation, such as Parliamentary Democracy (1945-1959), Guided Democracy (1959-1965), Pancasila Democracy (1966-1998), and Reformasi Democracy (1998-present).

However, the attribution of a number of adjectives to democracy has not yet described the ideal values contained in democracy itself. These types of democracy have proven to be unsuccessful in bringing this nation to be better.

On the contrary, the addition of these adjectives actually has a traumatic effect on the experience of being a nation and state.

On the other hand, some attributes attached by a number of "external" parties to describe the face of our democracy also tend to be pejorative. This happens because the face of democracy in this country is considered not in accordance with the ideal norms of democracy according to their version.

Just look at the attributes attached to the face of our democracy such as “flawed democracy” (The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2023), “partly democratic” (Freedom House), and “democratic regression” (Warburton, 2020). The attributes above seem to emphasize that the face of our democracy is still not ideal.

Whatever the reality, we should avoid adding adjectives to democracy so that we do not get caught up in the ideological burden and bias it contains.

That we want to develop a different democratic construct from other parts of the world is a legitimate choice. After all, there are many paths to democracy.

In the words of Bob Hefner (2000), there is no one democracy that applies to all countries (one size fits all democracy). Local cultural specificities may also color the face of our democracy.

Instead of fussing over artificial adjectives and attributes of democracy, why don't we fuss over the vision or ideals of democracy?

That democracy that is in line with the identity and noble values of the nation is a legitimate choice. However, what is far more important is to instrumentalize democracy for more substantive goals: the realization of social welfare for all Indonesian people.

What is the point of having democracy if our society is not prosperous, corruption is everywhere, unemployment and layoffs are rampant, and our economic life is not going well?

Second, democracy practiced in this country should not dull criticism. If Western liberal democracy institutionalizes criticism into opposition politics, the same thing should be maximized through the institutionalization of the trias politica in this Republic: executive, legislative, and judiciary.

If the executive institution functions to run the wheels of government, the legislative and judicial institutions are tasked with carrying out the function of supervision and control over the executive institution so that deviations do not occur.

In a democracy, freedom of opinion, association and assembly are basic elements that must be guaranteed by the state.

Our constitution is more than sufficient to guard this kind of freedom. Article 28E Paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution states that everyone has the right to associate, assemble, and express opinions.

Freedom of speech is also protected by other constitutions such as Law No. 39/1999 concerning Human Rights (HAM), Law No. 9/1998 concerning Freedom of Expression in Public, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), and so on.

In essence, if it fails to make the condition of this nation better, then adding the adjective to democracy becomes insignificant.

It would be much better if we left democracy in this country without a name, without frills and without any adjectives as long as the practice of democracy can lead every citizen to become better, fairer, dignified and prosperous physically and mentally.

When we are able to realize this kind of democratic vision, then this is the face of true democracy or “full-fledged democracy”. Hopefully!

Masdar Hilmy, Professor and Director of Postgraduate Studies at UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya; Chairman of LP Maarif NU East Java