The editorial in the 17 Oct. 2020 issue of The Economist was rather startling. It is written in the strong, forthright tone and elegant style typical of this magazine.
By
Ulil Abshar-Abdalla
·7 minutes read
KOMPAS/RONY ARIYANTO NUGROHO
A reflection of a banner is seen in a pair of sunglasses during a protest against the Job Creation Law held by students from Pakuan University on Wednesday (14/10/2020) at Kujang Monument in Bogor municipality, West Java. The student protesters said that the Job Creation Law, or omnibus law, betrayed and harmed the people. They also said that the manner in which the House of Representatives (DPR) deliberated and passed the law showed that lawmakers were unconcerned about the people during the Covid-19 health emergency.
The editorial in the 17 Oct. 2020 issue of The Economist was rather startling. It is written in the strong, forthright tone and elegant style typical of this magazine. It analyzes and, at the same time, provides a critical commentary on the controversial Job Creation Law.
The title has a rhyming effect if it is read in the poetic declamatory style of secondary school students in the pre-digital era: “Banyan: Suharto with a saw”. When translated, the tone becomes considerably stronger, although the rhyming effect is lost: “Pohon beringin: Soeharto dengan sebuah gergaji”.
The editorial contains no new information. In fact, it only echoes the stance of the critics of the Job Creation Law, which the House of Representatives hurriedly passed on 5 Oct. and, in the words of Gadjah Mada University legal expert Zainal Arifin Mochtar, recklessly. This editorial will only be surprising to those who are aware of the long history of this British magazine.
‘Spokesman’ for liberalization
As we know, The Economist is highly respectable. Apart from being over a century old (established in Britain, 1843), it also applies very high journalistic standards. It is widely known as a supporter of liberalism, both political and economic.
It defends capitalism, globalization and the concept of libertarianism that advocates minimal government, one that avoids excessive market intervention. We can call the magazine one of the most enthusiastic “spokesmen” for liberalization and privatization today, with its elegant and intellectually inspiring arguments.
In terms of its ideological spectrum, The Economist is on the “right”. Therefore, it is more closely aligned with the political ideology of Britain’s Conservative Party. Wikipedia describes it as supporting “radical centrism”, which I believe is a euphemism for conservatism. It is the opposite of the British paper The Guardian, which is on the “left” and more closely aligned with the Labor Party. Those wanting to stay informed of the liberal stance on certain issues will usually check what is written in this newspaper.
These complications are seen as the main barrier to investment.
As we are aware, the government has so far marketed the Job Creation Law as a new policy that will eliminate complicated rules and red tape. These complications are seen as the main barrier to investment.
This law offers important breakthroughs: deregulation and debureaucratization. The government is “selling” the law to the public as a game changer, a regulation that will fundamentally change the situation: creating a business-friendly investment climate, opening more jobs and rescuing Indonesia from the middle-income trap.
All these are, of course, liberal virtues that should please the editorial board of The Economist.
President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo has so far had a unique penchant for cultivating the image of his government as an administration that is close to millennial youths who are conscious of the latest technology: digital technology. This image has been built by appointing seven youths as Millennial Special Staff members and other moves. By selling the new law as a regulation that will create jobs, and hence it name, the Job Creation Law, the government hopes to gain extensive support from the millennial generation.
Unexpected reaction
What has happened is exactly the reverse. The law has triggered widespread protests, not only from labor groups that are certainly the most affected by this regulation. This could be the largest protest during the six years of the Jokowi administration. What is interesting is that opposition to the law also comes from millennials: students.
Even more surprising is that the law has generated protests in the social group that has hitherto given the impression of being more or less apolitical, a group that is composed of K-Poppers, teenaged fans of South Korean pop music.
Kompas/Wawan H Prabowo
Coordinating Minister for the Economy Airlangga Hartarto handed over the government\'s response on the discussion of the Omnibus Law on the Work Creation Bill (RUU) to the Chairman of the Indonesian Parliament Puan Maharani at the DPR RI plenary meeting at the Parliament Complex, Senayan, Jakarta, on Monday (5/10/2020).
These K-Poppers are openly showing their support for the labor and student protests that arose following the passage of the Job Creation Law. They have demonstrated their support en masse and demonstratively on social media, especially by backing a number of Twitter hashtags, like #MosiTidakPercaya (Motion of No Confidence). Many circles were stunned by the politicization (in the sense of the emergence of political awareness) among these teen K-Poppers in the same way I was astounded by The Economist’s editorial.
I would not be surprised if The Economist wrote an editorial supporting the Job Creation Law. The substance of the law clearly aligns with the magazine’s political ideology. The law introduces liberal and drastic steps – just call them “saw steps” – to facilitate the entry of investments, both foreign and domestic.
It would certainly raise Indonesia’s ranking in the ease of doing business index. It cuts red tape with a “saw” called the Omnibus Law. What has happened is just the opposite.
The Economist’s editorial strongly criticizes this saw a la Jokowi. It does not welcome with any enthusiasm the law intended to implement deregulation and debureaucratization, two keywords that represent the central concept of economic liberalization that The Economist has espoused so far.
It revives the old, popular refrain of the New Order era: top-down development.
Instead, the magazine negatively describes the law’s intended deregulation as a policy that cuts of several valuable legacies of Indonesian reform, including recentralizing authority. This will lessen the participation of government and local communities in executing those policies meant to boost development. It revives the old, popular refrain of the New Order era: top-down development.
Authoritarianism
The Economist illustrates the Jokowi government’s latest policy as “Indonesia’s lurch back into authoritarianism” a la Soeharto. For this reason, it uses the poetic metaphor in the editorial’s title: banyan with a saw. A banyan tree is the iconic representation of the Golkar Party, which was a vital supporter of the authoritarian New Order.
However, this isn’t the old banyan tree. It is a new banyan tree that is going to carry out a radical action in the name of “good intentions” (i.e. attracting investments): sawing off rules that complicate the process for prospective investors. Yet, as The Economist notes, it comes at a high cost: bringing back the old tree of authoritarianism.
In examining this magazine’s editorial, I am not suggesting that we should all refer to whatever is stated in foreign media, especially The Economist, as a yardstick by which to judge our government’s policies. Not in the least. But it would be a grave mistake for us to ignore what the outside world is saying about our government’s performance. We live in a global community. What is being said “out there” obviously cannot be responded to with indifference in the way Bung Karno (Sukarno) did: go to hell!
What The Economist has pointed out is, for me, worthy of consideration. That a magazine long known as an advocate for economic liberalization has commented negatively on the Jokowi government’s “liberal” policy means that there is a serious problem. The intention to attract investors in order to create more jobs for the millennial generation is evidently a positive goal that must be appreciated, but good intentions alone is not enough. What is more crucial is how this intention is executed, whether it is done through methods that are ma’ruf (right) or munkar (wrong), to use the religious terms.
It should not be, to use the phrase of The Economist, “undermining institutions” that were handed down through reform.
It may be no coincidence that President Jokowi has a deputy named Ma’ruf Amin. This could be a reminder that he should execute his good intentions by using methods that are Ma’ruf, the correct approach in the context of the rules of the game in a democracy. It should not be, to use the phrase of The Economist, “undermining institutions” that were handed down through reform.
Jokowi’s good intention is to cut the complicated red tape to guarantee smooth access for investors, but what has happened is cutting off several important legacies of reform: weakening the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), “taming” the Constitutional Court, reducing the independence of Bank Indonesia, repressing critical voices with the Electronic Information and Transactions Law (ITE) and recentralizing power.
We certainly don’t want Jokowi’s “saw” to be used in the wrong way and not in the ma’ruf way. We obviously don’t expect the return of the “banyan tree” that brings with it the spirit of authoritarianism, especially during an era of civilian presidents. Liberal thinkers and intellectuals in the country should closely consider what is being said in the editorial of The Economist.
KOMPAS/ PRIYOMBODO
Ulil Abshar-Abdalla
Ulil Abshar-Abdalla, Lecturer, postgraduate program, Nahdlatul Ulama University of Indonesia (Unusia), Jakarta
