A lot of signs and photos can show that more people sent to democracy is going, and that
is going on the transnational level as well as on the very local level. On the transnational
level you see all the campaigns. You see the program campaign, the pro-tibet campaign
and so on. On the grassroot level, since I just, in the last two years I've been doing
a lot of research in artsy, and I see that the Helsinki agreement has given a green light.
So I see a lot of Helsinki maybe. Maybe something, maybe something common between Helsinki and
maybe Aceh. Except the Ganya maybe. And that is the Helsinki agreement between the
United Nations and the free arts agreement has given a very high appreciation towards the
in this old democracy, basis democracy. What I mean by basis democracy is that we have to
look at the environment of struggles, which are ecosystem based, like in the Chico River
in Corrieras or in the Narmada Valley. Maybe a little bit from the perspective, maybe a
lot more anthropological perspective, that there are forms of democracy which are more
indigenous and maybe are still working. And that is after the 30 years war in Aceh, now
there's a chance to rebuild the democratic structure, which, or maybe to reinvent or
revive, a kind of neo-traditional form of democracy. And that is bottom up based from
the Gampung to the Mukim and eventually to the Wainang rule. A lot of the states, the
post-colonial states in Aceh and in Southeast Asia at least, are structures which are
artificial, maybe with exception of Thailand, which has never been colonized, but
squeezed. But basically all the post-colonial states in Aceh are a corner
structure imposed from the top. And therefore, the indigenous rights movement in
Indonesia, their motto is that, like Aman, against the Maasarakat island in Sundara,
their motto is, their slogan is that the indigenous people's movement will not recognize
the state if the state doesn't recognize the supremacy of indigenous people. The
reinvention of indigenous structure is maybe something which is an asset which
people need to think about when we talk and criticize electoral democracy and
electoral politics in Indonesia. What my paper concluded, first is that the more
people centered and participate in democracy in the region has become more and
more transnationalized. And this whole network, the Asian-European People's Forum
is a transnationalization of democracy. Secondly, it's a more negative conclusion.
Violent regional and intrastate conflicts which has happened in the region, in
East Timor in the past, and is still behind the instability in East Timor. And
in other places in Burma, are basically resource wars, resources wars. And in this
wars, the real agenda of the wars, that is to control resources, have often been
covered up by so-called democratic and human rights issues. I think people's, a
lot of NGOs have not dealt with this issue, that behind the former
districts of East Timor, or in the case of Indonesia, Ache, also are basically
resource wars. And thirdly, we're dealing more and more with so-called ethnic
and religious violence. We see that, first of all, there is this element of the
politics of identity. In a more and more globalized world, ethnicity and religion
are things which make people try to raise their voice. But ethnic and religious
violence are maybe the last heap of people turned to when fighting a war on
more so-called objective and rational things, and of working. This whole war
against terror is actually a war to protect US hegemony in Southeast Asia.
And therefore, after the breakdown of the very war, they need a new way of
demonizing the enemy. And the enemy are all those who are against this
interest. But the point I want to make is that the nature of the debate has
changed. Because the nature of the setting, democratic setting in Western
Europe, is deeply changing. First about what Brick already referred to, the
significance of what happened around the issue of the so-called constitution.
Can European Union institutions and European governments react democratically
to a democratic challenge? And the answer was no. No way. It leads to a second
question. Can you have democracy with no choice? Logically today, in countries
like European countries, you should have three major options presented to the
neoliberal capitalism, Tunisian capitalism, and no capitalism. That's
where it is. Not one social democratic, governmental party
proposed to get out from the neoliberal rainbow. Capitalist globalization is
systematically presented as if it was a natural phenomenon, against which you
can do nothing. The majority of these legislation which are applied in Western
European countries are coming from WTO, which is not an elected assembly.
It's an assembly of mergers. And you have, basically from the European Council
and European Commission. The European Parliament is a junior partner in these
three things. So the majority of legislations are coming from non-elected,
non-responsible parties, which is absolutely against the traditional
conception of bourgeois democracy. The theme of governance has replaced the
theme of democracy. But governance is coming from the corporate world.
So that's my second point. You have a pretense of democracy where you have
no choice offered. And when people are saying they want a choice, you just
wait and bypass that email. Third question, democracy and freedoms and
human rights. Here also you have a qualitative change which is ongoing
in Western Europe. And we all know that the ideology of anti-terrorism
serves to implement wars or implement policies which have nothing to do with
the fight against terrorism. Emergency laws which are applied in terms of
emergency are becoming permanent laws. It's a complete change in the legal
and philosophical approach of what is to be suspected. Fourth point and last point.
So the question of course is, can you have democracy under a system of global
suspicion? Presently you have a systematic dismantling of all the social gains
which were, for France it was, say, 36 after the war liberation,
and so on, systematic dismantling. So we are coming from a very high
compared to Asia, a very high standard of rights and so on.
Okay, as many people said, the fight for democracy is moving to Asia.
So there is this turning point, but the question is not to go back to the
world democracy, which is both to regain, for example, the centrality of
elected assemblies in initiating legislations. And I think we have to go,
from that we have to go beyond, which is, for example, in terms of institutions,
to fight for elected people, not to leave anymore from politics.
Because that's the beginning of the end. We have to address the democracy framework
at the level of the European institutions. And that's very difficult
because we are very different countries. But it's from the European level
that most knows our plan. And that's a question we have no answer yet.
What can be the framework for the European scale democracy?
Thank you.
