Click the icon above for the report.

In a liberal democracy, the focus is more on freedom than equality. Social democracy, on the other hand, seeks to create a level playing field by eliminating all forms of exclusions and inequalities through extensive participation at all levels of decision-making. Its ideas and norms have been debated for hundreds of years in line with human aspiration for justice and realistic economic policies.

Democracy is not just an institution to hold regular free elections but a process of collective reasoning that brings diverse viewpoints, social perspectives and voices into policy debates. Regulation of the economy for the interest of society as a whole rather than individuals is at the heart of social democracy. There are two reasons why social democracy is the best route towards gender equality. First, without compromising freedom it enables citizens to exercise their social, economic and cultural rights. Secondly, many liberal conceptions of democracy that restrict government interests in the supposedly private areas—domestic violence, suicide, child abuse, witchcraft, stigma of widowhood—are open to state laws.

The basic values of social democracy are freedom, social justice and solidarity where women and men can think, act and perform equally.

Solution of social question

“We have to draw up a programme which is not exclusively socialist but also democratic. Otherwise, we cannot claim the name of Social Democrats and think about a solution of the Social question,” says August Bebel, cofounder of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) of Germany and its active leader for over 40 years.

In line with the above saying, Nepali Congress has recently revitalised its manifesto and has adopted social democratic approach. Now Nepal needs to do the same. The country’s unique political and socio-economic scenario demands a political ideology based on social justice. When it comes to gender issues, the focus of social democracy on positive discrimination for women in societies like ours where women generally live harder lives as compared to men makes it uniquely suitable for Nepal. It takes into account the fact that women working in such societies have to balance work and family. Family and work are both important institutions of democracy and social democracy rightly gives them due attention. Above all, social democracy believes on the need to take family and work together. These social issues need to be considered seriously.

Another key aspect of social democracy is women’s freedom, which, it argues, should be comparable to men’s. It seeks to create an atmosphere where both men and women have an opportunity to enjoy their rights and freedoms. If more women are involved in the decision making positions, it speculates, stronger roots for nationalism can be laid. In Nepal, the division of labour according to gender is the main reason why Nepali women have been reduced to living their lives inside the confines of their homes rather than participating in the great tasks of nation building.  To level the playing field, it is important that gender rights be linked with constitutional and human rights.

The idea is that when women’s responsibilities begin to shift outside the home, men will have to cooperate with them in the private affairs in order to create a balanced society.  They have to remove conservative biases regarding strict gender roles.

Conclusion

As examples in other developing countries show, capitalism produces injustice in the society; while the effects of totalitarianism are also negative. Therefore the concept of social democracy, which posits that political power is essential to remove inequality, fits our society perfectly.

In a democracy, citizens are real sovereigns. Each individual has the right to decide what polices they consider the best to maintain their liberty, dignity and identity. They have an interest in being active citizens, because they have the power to shape the policy decisions that affect them.

What is becoming increasingly clear is that the majority of Nepalis want to live in a welfare state. The advocacy of a welfare state is clear sign that inequality can only be bridged through policy arguments in which the entire society takes an active part. This means, in the current context, social democracy is the best way to give Nepali citizens, especially women, equal rights to decide what they consider their best interests.

Samira Paudel
The author is associated with Friedrich Ebert Foundation, which works in areas of democracy, trade union, media and gender

by Ivan A Hadar

According to government official data, the Jakarta groundwater condition now is very severe. It is estimated, that in the next 15 years, Jakarta will have a water crisis if there is no breakthrough to handle the issue.

The industrial area in West Jakarta has already entered a very critical point today. It is recommended the central government immediately conserve the ground water areas in Jakarta, West Java, and Banten in order to improve the ground water basin areas of Jakarta. (Tempo.interaktif , Feb. 3, 2010)
This June, on Jakarta’s 483rd anniversary, the clean water issue remains an unsolved problem.

Although it has been privatized by allowing the foreign partner of the Regional Water Company (PDAM Jaya), a clean water supply to residents is often clogged, and sometimes completely freezes.

Ironically, Jakarta is a very rich water resource area. There are many large rivers here. As a low land area, groundwater can be obtained without the need to dig too deep.

Beside, Java’s water reserves, in fact, are not greatly used by residences. However, the rivers are heavily polluted.

Water needed for Jakarta mainly comes from two sources, namely rivers and wells. Although the total population is numbered “fantastic”, from a quantitative aspect, water availability in Jakarta should not be a problem.

But exploitation of ground water by large buildings induced severe consequences with a serious  decline in ground water levels. Additionally, there is a 15 kilometer distance to infiltrate seawater to downtown.

According to some studies, the number of city dwellers who have access to clean water, is only about 6-15 percent.

Unless the city government makes drastic policies, pollution from industrial waste will increase fivefold by 2020. A large amount of pollution is also caused by the wastewater tertiary sector, particularly household waste.

Every day, tons of garbage washed into the river makes it a “paradise” for many kinds of bacteria. The collie bacterial content is a thousand times beyond the level prescribed by the World Health Organization (WHO).

Moreover, this content also breaks into ground water and is ready to become a time bomb.

Of all Jakarta residents, only less than 15 percent have access to water taps in their homes.

Meanwhile, a quarter of the people in Jakarta purchase bottled water or from sellers of channel water in residential areas.

The rest obtain it by using artesian well water. Because of weak law enforcement, many factories and industries do not comply with regulations on the use of filters and clarification plants to clean up toxic waste. It is usually dumped into rivers and the sea in the Greater Jakarta area.

Waste water cleaning technology, in fact, has been developed from domestic or foreign countries at a relatively affordable price.

Inevitably, water as a public good, should be provided by the government for the population, including through subsidies for people living in poverty.

Therefore, the tendency to make water a commodity of the free market as applied in Indonesia today, should be scrutinized, because usually only minority will benefit.

The demands of  the People’s Coalition for the Right to Water to allow the government to take control of water management in Jakarta, no longer leaving it to the private sector, is worthy of consideratio (www.kruha.org). Hopefully.

(Source of photo above: The Internet)

The writer is the city planner and executive director of the Indonesian Institute for Democracy in Education, and co-chief editor of the Journal of Social Democracy.

click here to read the full article: ACFTA – Which Options For Indonesia

By: Martin Manurung*
Facing the ASEAN-China Free Trade Agreement (ACFTA), workers and employers stand on the same position. This is an unusual phenomenon.

Both are screaming for help facing tremendous consequences of the implementation of the free trade agreement. Indeed, the FTA’s impacts are tough, both for the industry and workers. Therefore, it is legitimate to ask: who did we think will benefit from the decision to join the ACFTA?

Particularly on the Indonesian case, we know have found out that the participation in the ACFTA was decided without comprehensive qualitative and quantitative research with regards to the benefits and losses of such agreement. Furthermore, the government has done very little preparations to strengthen the economic structure and the country’s competitiveness in anticipating the FTA.

The Indonesian economy has shown negative responses to the implementation of ACFTA and the previous AFTA. It is obvious that China will be more dominant than the ASEAN countries in the ACFTA. One of the most crucial implications of such agreement is the increase of unemployment rate as a result of the closures of the manufactures and other productive sectors.

At least, 10 sectors of Indonesia’s manufacture will have a hard time when the ACFTA is implemented in full effect. The sectors are textiles and textiles products (TPT), food and beverages industry, petrochemical industry, agricultural equipment and machinery industry, footwear industry, synthetic fiber industry, electronics (including cable and electrical equipments), machinery industry, constructions, and steel industry. The unemployment rate caused by industrial closures is expected to reach 7.5 million, and it will subsequently lead to the increase of poverty rates.

Furthermore, the ASEAN countries also are less competitive with regards to capital financing. In Indonesia, for example, interest rates reach 14 to 16 percent, while China’s are only 4 to 6 percent. It will make Indonesia’s industrial climate tougher when implementing free trade amid the high interest rates, which signal inefficiency in the country’s financial sector.

If we need to implement the ACFTA, we have to take systematic and quick actions. Among others are targeted industrial strategy, which includes labor intensive sectors such as agricultures and fisheries. The development of labor intensive sectors will have higher multiplier effect for the people’s welfare.

In the monetary and banking sector, it is now the time for the state (not only the government) to create a mechanism for banks to disburse funds to support industrialization. If needed, we have to design an “Agricultural Bank” to support the plan, as happened in China and Thailand.

In the financial sector, we must stop, or reduce, the recent trend that banks merely take profits from the financial markets and not acting as intermediary institution to the real sector. This must be followed by policy schemes and incentives to make funds in the financial sector can help industrial strategy in the real sector.

Based on the above perspective, we have to realize that a lot of preparations must be undertaken prior to full implementation of the ACFTA. Therefore, what we need is not merely to postpone the FTA, but also to significantly improve our economic system, financial system and social security system.

*The writer is Director of the Institute for Welfare Democracy

Originally published here

Denden Alicias, July 2009

Participatory governance processes have mushroomed around the world but a number of studies have already pointed out to the failures of sustaining the participatory projects and in empowering ordinary citizens.  In this article, I draw attention to a complicated set of enabling  factors  for  success  in participatory governance.   The  insights and  lessons  here are  culled  from  the  studies  of  Rebecca  Abers  on  the  internationally  acclaimed participatory budget policy in Porto Alegre, Brazil.  With the rise of progressive political parties  in  Southeast  Asia,  coupled  with  the  introduction  of  participatory  governance spaces  in  conjunction  with  decentralization,  the  insights  from  Porto  Alegre  may  be helpful in thinking about local governance transformations in the region.

• A  dual  process  of  commitment  building  is  necessary  for  the  success  of participatory institutions.

State  actors  (politicians  and  bureaucrats)  and  ordinary  citizens  should  be motivated  to support,  take  part  in,  and  respect  participatory  processes.   Without  the motivation  and commitment, polices are unlikely to be empowered and participatory.

Taking a  realistic  view of  the motivations of  state actors, Abers  (n.d., 2000) argues  that political will is not enough.  Reform efforts of progressive state actors create political and practical  burdens  that,  more  often  than  not,  they  cannot  withstand.    Politically,  the attempt to transfer power to a forum, where ordinary citizens can make decisions, means taking power away from those that have it and who also possess the resources and ability to  resist  such  change.   Practical  problems  also  arise  in  participatory  process  especially when  the  state administration pushing  it  is  inefficient and  lack  funding.    “Participatory decision-making  requires money  to organize  the process and  financial, operational, and legal capacity to implement its results”.

To read more, click here.

Roots and Spread of Financial Crisis

After the sub-prime mortgage crisis in the US first burst into the headlines of mainstream newspapers in June 2007[1], there have been two general categories of the many discussions that have taken place regarding the roots of the global financial – and now, economic – crisis, both of which views are important but do not usually get discussed together. It is crucial to see the importance of their interaction – the dynamics of one on the other – rather than either in isolation.

One view can be labeled the ‘temporary excess’ point of view which, to put it plainly, argues that greed leading to excessive risk-taking, lax regulations, excessive overzealous brokerage and rating agencies caused the crisis we have on our hands today. To resolve the crisis, therefore, efforts should be made to fix, ‘tweak’, and improve upon the technical aberrations of what is – to those who subscribe to this view – an otherwise perfect financial system. This view is not completely incorrect, though it is incomplete.

The other view, the ‘aggregate demand generation’ point of view believes there is as a root cause – a  systemic, structural flaw in the whole system of capitalist-driven finance that led to the global financial crisis. We believe that flaw lies in the problem of income inequality. As we shall see below, tackling the root, structural cause is of utmost importance if we are to prevent – or at least mitigate – future financial crises of the nature we are going through today. As Thomas I. Palley, the then-assistant director of public policy of AFL-CIO, put it when talking about yet another financial crisis that occurred in the US eight years ago:

To read more, click here.

In her visit to Indonesia, US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Indonesia was not only the most populous Muslim country in the world, but also had been able to prove that democracy, Islam and modernity could exist in parallel. At a news conference after a bilateral meeting, Foreign Minister Hassan Wirayudha strengthened Clinton’s statement when he said that, because of the country’s active role in pushing intercivilization, religious and cultural dialogue, Indonesia would be a good partner for the United States in reaching out to the Muslim world.

Despite terrorists bombings, the basic landscape in the country is viewed as moderate and democratic. Truthfully, the view that civilian sovereignty is incompatible with Islam and that democracy is somehow un-Islamic is neither popular nor accepted in Indonesia.

Indeed, the idea that democracy is un-Islamic is unpopular in the Muslim world in general. European expansion to the Middle East, as “the center of the Islamic world,” in the early 19th century was welcomed enthusiastically, mainly because it also carried hope of release from the “grasp” of Osmanian rule. Many laid hope in the principles of freedom, equality and kinship in deciding the formation of the nation state. But hopes quickly faded, because the basic principles of the French Revolution were not carried over to the colonies.

To legitimize discrimination and conquest, Western colonial governments needed ideological justification. Edward Said brilliantly expressed this matter in his book, “Orientalism,” saying the West uses assumptions about the Oriental economy and culture as a tool for discrimination and political control.

To read more, click here.

In 2006–08, food shortages became a global reality, with the prices of commodities spiraling beyond the reach of vast numbers of people. International agencies were caught flatfooted, with the World Food Program warning that its rapidly diminishing food stocks might not be able to deal with the emergency.

Owing to surging prices of rice, wheat, and vegetable oils, the food import bills of the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) climbed by 37 percent from 2007 to 2008, from $17.9 million to $24.6 million, after having risen by 30 percent in 2006. By the end of 2008, the United Nations reported, “the annual food import basket in LDCs cost more than three times that of 2000, not because of the increased volume of food imports, but as the result of rising food prices.”1 These tumultuous developments added 75 million people to the ranks of the hungry and drove an estimated 125 million people in developing countries into extreme poverty.2

Alarmed by massive global demand, countries like China and Argentina resorted to imposing taxes or quotas on their rice and wheat exports to avert local shortages. Rice exports were simply banned in Cambodia, Egypt, India, Indonesia, and Viet Nam. South-South solidarity, fragile in the best of times, crumbled, becoming part of the collateral damage of the crisis.

To read more, click here.

In 2007, the SBY-JK administration proclaimed its “1,000 Towers” plan, the provision of one million high-rise apartments, mostly in Jakarta and other large cities in Java, to address a growing housing crisis. According to official estimates, the demand for housing in Indonesia has reached at least 5.5 million units and will increase annually by approximately one million units. The towers were originally scheduled for completion this year, but by the end of 2008 only 86 towers had been built.

The official estimates of housing needs do not fully reflect the realities of the housing situation. Missing are the millions of families who are registered as owning a residence that does not meet eligibility standards. Many of these housing situations are a result of natural disasters.

In general, the housing crisis is marked by slum housing, including sheds and illegal shelters in river floodplains and under bridges, that has expanded and reached into most corners of large cities. The housing crisis is also marked by social-space inequalities resulting in the number of houses occupied exceeding the capacity, a very high housing density in certain regions, the unavailability of space for privacy, the loss of public space and recreation and housing locations that are at some distance from the workplace.

To read more, click here.