Is
the Scottish referendum anything
we
can learn from?
Syahrul Hidayat ;
A lecturer at the school of
political science, University of Indonesia; He is currently an honorary
research fellow at the Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies, University of
Exeter, UK
|
JAKARTA
POST, 24 September 2014
|
After a
two-year-long campaign, people in Scotland have decided not to break away
from the United Kingdom. While Alex Salmond, the first minister of Scotland’s
government, and his supporters could not hide their disappointment with the
fact that only 45 percent of the voters said “yes” to independence, it is
surely a huge relief for the central government in Westminster.
More than
that, many leaders in Western Europe, especially Spain, woke up on Friday
morning with big smiles. The torpedo — that is what they called the
referendum — was in fact not the cause of fatalities and catastrophes. At
last, the problem of central and regional relations did not end up in
separation, as was also the case with Quebec in Canada.
As a country
with problems between the center and the regions, Indonesia can surely learn
a lot from this democratic process.
Despite the
differences in practicing democracy, it is clear that Indonesia is a country
that has chosen to adopt a democratic process as a replacement for an
authoritarian governance under the New Order.
The first
lesson is there was a tendency that those who supported independence in the
Scottish referendum lived in a relatively deprived condition, especially
economically. Glasgow and Dundee are the best example of urban people who
expected a new situation in an independent Scotland after experiencing less
fortunate living conditions during the ongoing economic crisis.
Aspirations
for independence loomed on the grounds that Scots could possibly maximize
their money from oil and gas from the North Sea. It was also assumed that
elderly and rural people were more in favor of independence.
For Indonesia,
it is clear that the idea of separation in certain regions mainly stems from
an unfair distribution of revenues from natural resources.
Therefore, to
win their hearts and minds the central government could find no other way
than to formulate fairer policies that allow local people to profit from the
natural resources.
In the case of
the UK, the implementation of the welfare state decades ago has clearly been
enjoyed by the people, who were then consequently afraid of the uncertainty
that may have followed separation from London. It might have included them
losing their right to use Sterling and their European Union membership.
That’s why the
‘no’ campaigners led by Alistair Darling offered a road map to give more
power to the local government in Edinburgh to formulate better policies for
the people. They proposed the tag of “Better Together” to capture the feeling
of many.
The message in
this case is to entrust local people to develop their capacities to manage
the money and formulate policies. Some in Indonesia may be skeptical with
this idea, but in fact this is part of the process of developing trust in and
guidance from the central government.
As in the UK,
welfare state principles are implemented nationally to include tax systems to
pay for services in education, health, pensions and benefits.
The local
governments receive budgets for infrastructure and a room to collect revenues
for local services. As long as the people receive and enjoy benefits from the
UK government the idea of separation can be challenged in a peaceful manner.
Second, it is
important to maintain a democratic process as a mean of asking the public for
approval. Of course, it is absolutely clear that Salmond and other supporters
of independence believed in the idea of Scotland being better off without
having any relations with London.
In fact, more
than 50 percent of the people did not buy the idea.
Therefore, it
was not because the idea was not brilliant, but democracy is about what
people say and feel.
Although
democracy is criticized as inefficient and lacking in details and technical
discussions when dealing with the public, it still guarantees that political
elites are always in consultation with the public. That is the essence of
democracy.
In a mature
democracy such as the UK’s, democracy still saves the political arena from
the monopoly of a tiny group of politicians, who suspiciously tend to get
corrupted if they are given absolute access to power.
The lesson of
democracy can be learned from the way politicians responded to the outcome of
the referendum. Although believing wholeheartedly that the Scots would choose
independence, Salmond was humble enough to say that democracy was to be
admired, which means the people’s voices have to be accepted. At the same
time, Prime Minister David Cameron expressed his admiration of the ‘yes’
campaign and acknowledged their voice by offering a deliverable devolution
agenda and a time table for its implementation.
Can we see the
same harmonious situation just a day after the long battle that preceded the
2014 presidential elections in July? As a big country that has survived
different regimes, we should share the same attitude of always taking the
public’s preferences into account in the political process.
Following such
a process, in the form of an election and a public consultation, political
elites should respect people’s choices because this is, again, the essence of
democracy.
In other
words, democracy is not only about winning or losing. ●
|
