Young voters : Hopefully the turning point Erick Hansnata ;  The writer is researching economics at the Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis at the University of Canberra, Australia

                                                JAKARTA POST,  10 Februari 2014                

                                                                                                                        

                                                                                         

                                                      

The term “critical juncture” is repeatedly used by Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson in their prominent book, Why Nations Fail.  They describe a critical juncture as a historic turning point and like a double-edged sword it can cause a momentous turn in the trajectory of a nation. The sharp turn can be positive by breaking the nation’s vicious cycle from authoritarian and corrupt government into a more inclusive political and economic institution.  Yet, it could change a democratic country into an extractive state, where a few elites control the work of many. As the writers emphasize, the reason why some countries prosper and others still struggle with poverty is not because of geographical advantages or even culture, but lies in their institutional development.  While the process may take a long time, involving conflict or even civil war, the constructive critical juncture always includes participation by civil society. Historical examples include the economic disparity between Western and Eastern Europe. In the mid-14th century the bubonic plague, the so-called Black Death, killed almost half of Europe’s entire population.  The massive labor shortages encouraged unpaid workers in Western Europe, particularly in England, to propose a change in wages to their landlords and, thus, initiate a mutual connection between ruler and worker.  This significantly transformed Western European societies regarding economic and political institutions. Eastern Europe did not experience similar developments, and eventually these differences have contributed to their current economic conditions.  The differences of political institutions correspond to how economic mechanisms are run in a country and, therefore, explains the quality of growth.  Nations with inclusive political institutions emphasize equality before the law, protect individual property rights, apply a market economy and bolster technological change for economic efficiency.  These measures contribute to equal opportunity and spread wealth. Conversely, under extractive political institutions, people have no incentive for growth, resulting in massive poverty and huge inequalities. North Korea is a vivid example of an extractive political institution in the 21st century.  Many believe that the end of the New Order brought our critical juncture through the reform of political and economic institutions. However, the momentum became hijacked by several political elites for their own interests.  Corrupt behavior increased as public institutions became more extractive, based on massive political transactions connected with economic exploitation by elite groups. Persistent economic growth in the last 10 years has been heavily driven by consumption. Exports relied on raw materials, and things worsened as the government became trapped by huge subsidies, influencing a lagging infrastructure.  No wonder, the Word Bank’s 2014 index on doing business ranks Indonesia 120 out of 189 countries, dropping from 116 in 2013.  On social indicators, although poverty has declined significantly, those living near the poverty line are estimated to reach almost half the population. The Gini index, which measures inequality, stood at 0.31 in 1999 but increased to 0.41 in 2013, reflecting that persistent growth does not necessarily equal better income distribution.  Amid these figures, our new hope is the youth, who total more than 80 million. As the bulk of the middle class, they are expected to prioritize common sense in their votes. Compared to 1999, young voters this year who are in a better economic situation will be the “game changers” with more rational preference.  They are also better organized and have access to social media sites. One survey reported that more than 50 percent of voters would prefer a credible or honest leader rather than a charismatic one.  We do not want to see high abstentions during this momentous transition. History is paved with moments of transition lost when key players refrain from participating. Hopefully, 2014 will be Indonesia’s real critical juncture. ●