Jusuf Wanandi :
(From previous issue)
He also has a tendency toward authoritarianism, which will be hard to apply in India, as Indira Gandhi’s experience has shown. His foreign policy is expected to be more nationalistic, and he is willing to spend more on defense, especially in the North East. India’s strength has been its democracy, and its democratic system looks able to face new and future challenges. Modi is considered capable of managing the economy as he has done in Gujarat, and he is less constrained as the Congress Party was because the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has a comfortable majority in parliament.
India has a large cohort of young people, so it is well-endowed with enormous manpower for the future. However, unlike China, India is not a strong unitary state-the regions are powerful and decentralized in a federal system.
Infrastructure deficiency is very real, and for a while could limit the extent of Modi’s economic reforms, at least in the medium term.
India is an amalgamation of societies. Its caste system and strong regions may constrain her ability to reform the economy quickly, while China, a very strong unitary state for the last 2,300 years, does not have that problem. India’s democracy is real and that makes it possible for her to muddle through as necessary. However, poverty, a lack of jobs and wealth inequality are Herculean challenges if the country is to develop fast and well.
Modi’s Look East foreign policy will take some time to work out. In the meantime, he has made the necessary gestures to India’s immediate neighbors, especially Pakistan.
Hopefully, the approach can create an environment conducive to economic growth, bringing about strong growth for the region as China has done in the East Asia region.
Indonesia is a country awaiting a new Cabinet after the results of the presidential election held on July 9, 2014. That election was unlike any in the country’s history. It constituted an ideological contest between the two contenders, Joko “Jokowi” Widodo and Prabowo Subianto, and its result will mean big change for the country.
Jokowi’s victory means a new era for Indonesia, led by a member of a new generation, where democracy will be more mature and the economy will be consolidated under regional and global tenets which ensure that it is open, liberal and mainly dependent on the private sector.
Jokowi is a new leader from a poor background, not from the elite. It is expected that he will bring with him a new outlook and vision on governance and its priorities.
Jokowi won because the people themselves directed his campaign through the activities of volunteers and all kinds of NGOs, all of whom worked very hard for him.
The results of the election were 46.85 percent for Prabowo against 53.15 percent for Jokowi, a victory margin of more than 8.4 million votes. People trust him to be honest, one of their own and not corrupt.
How about the situation in other fields? Democracy has taken root, even if it is not yet fully mature. Many improvements have taken place since 1998, and the election of Jokowi is a good example.
Nationalism has surged in Indonesia, partly because the national leadership has neglected to educate the populace, and has never implemented policies to compensate for the effects of globalization and to open up the economy more.
The education system is on the wrong track, emphasizing white-collar education when what Indonesia needs is something like the German model, which emphasizes polytechnics and vocational training.
Healthcare, too, is in a bad shape. Reform is long overdue. Education and health should be the two main instruments of the government not only to cope with the effects of globalization but also to bring about social justice and to reduce ever-increasing wealth inequality.
They should also be instruments to overcome the middle-income trap for any emerging economy; Jokowi had already started to do this at the local level when mayor of Surakarta and governor of Jakarta.
Corruption is still rampant, though serious efforts have been made with the establishment of the independent Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK). More should be done; the incorruptibility of the top leaders is indispensible in a paternalistic society such as Indonesia.
Islam will always be an important factor in Indonesian politics, although it does not necessarily wield its influence through Islamic political parties such as the United Development Party (PPP) or the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS), whose votes in the elections declined or were stagnant. Indonesia has two big Islamic NGOs, the Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), which is traditional and rural; and Muhammadiyah, which is modern and urban.
Both are influential and moderate, and both shun practical politics. This way, they manage to keep the Muslim communities balanced and open.
The Indonesian Military (TNI) has, to its credit, maintained its sensible stance since Soeharto’s ouster by shunning practical politics.
That means that at this juncture a military coup d’état is out of the question. The military has learned its lessons, and it also has no intellectual leadership at this point. In addition, the post-Soeharto era has slowly but surely created stability and further progress for the TNI. That includes a better understanding of its defensive role, while its budget and weaponry have been increased.
Indonesia is positioned as a middle power in the international community, and is currently punching below its weight. While this is true, the new leadership under Jokowi could prove even more pragmatic and economy-oriented.
In this case, the Foreign Ministry will play a more important regional role, while Indonesia’s profile might be less high than today.
The new leadership will be more inward-looking, and will prioritize Indonesia’s domestic development and economic interests. It will take some time to educate Jokowi on foreign affairs, but he is a quick learner.
(Jusuf Wanandi, Vice Chair, Board of Trustees, CSIS Foundation, Jakarta)
(Concluded)
