Indonesia’s Resilience
Indonesia’s resilience was reflected in our rebound in 2016 to rank 94 with a significant decrease of instability score to 72.9. We were also included in the list of 20 most improved countries.
All nations have the capacity to recover from deterioration and crises. In the 1970s, China was an impoverished nation and 30-40 million of its people died from starvation. Its per capita income in 1980 was US$194.81. It dropped even further to US$96.1 in March 1992. However, in 2017, China’s per capita income reached US$3,547.4.
Who would have thought that China’s socialist economy would ever be successful, resulting in it having the largest foreign exchange reserves in the world. This is the resilience of China.
In 2005, a collaboration between United States think tank Fund for Peace and US scientific publication Foreign Policy (founded, among others, by Samuel P Huntington) began releasing the Failed States Index (FSI).
However, the use of the term “failed states” was criticized by many. Other than its lack of rigorous description, the terminology represents a false dichotomy between failed states and non-failed states. In actuality, using the analogy of heart failure, there is no such thing as a “failed state”. However, states’ fragility may be mapped from time to time. Consequently, in 2014, the FSI was changed into the Fragile States Index.
Some countries may be financially broke, but they can still escape total destruction. Some time ago, it was difficult to imagine that South Korea and Japan would be the countries they are today if we saw just how bad their conditions had been after World War II. Some countries may be poorly managed and financially broke, but their governments somehow are still running. Zimbabwe, once a continental granary in Africa, is a perfect example of this.
The tale of a nation
In the peak of Zimbabwe’s economic crisis in 2008, its monthly inflation rate reached 7.9 billion percent. Its economy shrunk to minus 18 percent. The highest banknote in circulation, ZWD 100 trillion (40 cents), was only enough for bus rides in a week. Three eggs were ZWD 100 billion. As Zimbabweans no longer trusted their own currency for daily transactions, several foreign currencies were used instead.
Zimbabwe’s road to bankruptcy began when populist leader Robert Mugabe ascended to the presidency in 1987 and carried out radical agrarian reforms. This was followed by severe corruption and mismanagement of the agrarian sector. Under a dictatorship disguised in populist slogans, Zimbabwe slowly became the country with the highest level of starvation over the next two decades.
However, the country still exists today – even if its latest instability score was 101.6 (in 2016), putting it as the 13th most unstable country. Zimbabweans, including the elites, later ousted their dictator. Despite its lack of funds, the impoverished country was still able to give a severance pay of Rp 135 billion ($9.72 billion) and a salary for life for the former president.
Even if it is difficult to imagine how Zimbabwe could ever rise again, the country will never collapse as long as it still has diamonds, wealth of wildlife and other natural commodities to be sold in international markets. There are still 12 other countries more unstable than Zimbabwe. The collapse of a country is not as simplistic as a human’s death preceded by aging.
A country can only collapse if all the main components of its people and elites agree to break up and establish separate countries. This was what happened in Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union and Sudan. If only the people wish to separate without support from the elites, only protracted civil war will occur.
On the contrary, if the elites wish for separation without support from the people, a country may be temporarily separated. However, in time, national reunification may be possible. Such was the case with West Germany and East Germany. State reunification may be impossible in Korea but nation-based reunification may still happen. The Koreans, both in the north and the south, are proving to the world that they have their own ways to unite without intervention from other countries.
Indonesia today and tomorrow
According to the FSI, Indonesia is on a positive trajectory. Our latest instability score was 72.9 (2016). We are on rank 94 and considered to be on a low-warning level. We are better than China (at rank 85), Thailand (82), India (72) and Israel (70).
Indonesia scored 75 in 2014 and 74.9 in 2015. The higher the score (and the lower the rank), the more unstable a country is perceived. Between 2014 and 2015, our instability rank increased by two positions, from 88 to 86, but our instability score decreased by 0.1 point. The increased rank in 2015 did not mean that Indonesia was becoming more fragile. It simply meant that other countries’ instability score decreased further than ours.
Indonesia’s resilience was reflected in our rebound in 2016 to rank 94 with a significant decrease of instability score to 72.9. We were also included in the list of 20 most improved countries. Compare this to our condition in 2004, when we got an FSI score of 87 (one point away from being on alert level) and an FSI rank of 46.
Indonesia can indeed break up if a majority of its people and elites leave behind the state ideology of Pancasila and violate the agreements on which the state is founded. Such efforts from certain groups of people have existed since the early days of our independence. However, time and time again, we have shown our ability to resolve these problems with our own ways.
Our ideological resilience is accompanied by our financial resilience against economic crises. Nowadays, the world recognizes Indonesia as an economic power. It is true that only God knows if what happens in Indonesia tomorrow is in line with the country’s positive trajectory today.
The main responsibility of our national leaders and elites today is to give everything they have in eliminating structural obstacles that impede our country from achieving its highest potential. These structural obstacles include corruption and inefficient bureaucracy. At the central government, major bureaucratic reforms are underway. Last year, Indonesia jumped 19 positions to rank 72 (out of 190 countries) in the World Bank’s ease-of-doing-business index. We were even better than China (rank 78) and India (100). Regional bureaucratic reform is slower as seen from the high number of local political elites ensnared in corruption cases.
Like China, Indonesia must find its own way to reform itself. Socialist China embraced tamed capitalism and forced it to serve its national interests. After its economic rise, China also emerges as a new force in sports and technology (and even in space engineering). Under Donald Trump, capitalist United States embraces protectionism, which has gained international criticism despite domestic appreciation.
It is time for Indonesian elites to cease their seasonal narratives founded on divisive populism ahead of the presidential election. Nationalism based on primordialism, let alone anti-foreign sentiments, will not lead us to the way of progress. We must optimize the benefits of our economic activities to accelerate our progress toward a stable country. Walking will not be enough. We must prepare ourselves to run.
Yonky Karman, Lecturer at Jakarta Theological Seminary