In Indonesia, discussions about democracy often seem superficial; people speak of it as if they fully understand what it entails. A notable example is Prabowo’s public speech on democracy during his first address as president at the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR) Building. He presents a view that oversimplifies the concept of democracy. While democracy may not be as complex as some suggest, it certainly requires careful consideration and commitment.
Democracy, rooted in ancient Greece, has been extensively examined throughout the history of philosophy and politics. Despite this, some scholars still consider it to be essentially contested (Gallie, 1956), resulting in ongoing debates that many find both engaging and exhausting. This article will focus on one of the most influential and contemporary views of democracy.
Ideal vs. actual democracy
In modern discourse, Robert Dahl’s research on democracy is regarded as one of the most thorough. He distinguishes between ideal and actual democracies, maintaining that a perfect democracy is unattainable. Instead, an ideal democracy acts as a standard against which real political systems can be evaluated and improved. It provides a framework of criteria that a genuinely democratic process should meet. In contrast, actual democracies may not achieve these ideals but still represent efforts to approximate them in practice.
According to Dahl, an ideal democracy should possess the following criteria. First, effective participation: All members of society must have equal and effective opportunities to engage in policy-making. Second, voting equality: Every eligible member must have an equal and adequate chance to vote and ensure their vote is counted.
Third, enlightened understanding: Participants must have ample and equal opportunity to learn about various policy options and their potential impacts within a reasonable timeframe. Fourth, control of the agenda: Members must have the exclusive power to determine which issues are addressed in the decision-making process, keeping it responsive to their concerns. Fifth, inclusion of adults: All adult permanent residents should enjoy full rights as citizens to participate in the democratic process (Dahl, 1998).
In contrast to the ideal framework, Dahl identifies six key political institutions that characterize a modern representative democracy (Dahl, 1998). Firstly, government decisions are made by officials elected by the citizens. Secondly, officials are selected through regular, fair elections conducted without coercion. Thirdly, citizens have the right to express their opinions on political matters without fear of severe penalties, including the criticism of officials and the government.
Fourthly, citizens must have access to information from diverse and independent sources to help them form informed opinions. Fifthly, citizens should be able to form independent associations, such as political parties and interest groups, to advocate for their interests and engage in the political sphere. Lastly, nearly all adults should have the right to vote and fully participate in their nation’s political life. As long as these criteria for actual democracy are met, we can consider it a functioning democracy.
A new proposal
Wolfgang Merkel later proposed a new and more comprehensive view of democracy, which he calls “embedded democracy.” This concept consists of five partial regimes: a democratic electoral regime, political rights of participation, civil rights, horizontal accountability, and the guarantee that effective governing power lies in the hands of democratically elected representatives (Merkel, 2004).
The electoral regime is the most vital component of embedded democracy. Merkel bases this on Robert Dahl’s proposal, which includes four supporting elements: universal active suffrage, universal passive suffrage, free and fair elections, and elected representatives. Vertical accountability is part of this electoral regime, as it ensures that politicians are held responsible to their constituents.
Political rights refer to the rights of political communication and organization, encompassing freedom of speech, freedom of opinion, and the right to associate, demonstrate, and petition. These rights enable organized democratic elections and support the expression of diverse interests in complex societies.
Civil rights, on the other hand, protect individuals from the actions of the state and elected legislators that might infringe upon personal freedoms. These rights are viewed as fundamental constitutional protections that limit state power over individuals, and Merkel interprets civil rights as the negative rights that safeguard individual freedom from the state.
However, ensuring that politicians are vertically accountable is not sufficient for maintaining a stable constitutional democracy due to its periodic nature. A strong liberal democracy also requires horizontal accountability, where elected officials hold one another accountable through mechanisms of power division. This horizontal accountability aims to establish a system of checks and balances among elected officials, ensuring they remain aligned with democratic principles.
The final partial regime necessary for the effective functioning of liberal democracy is that elected officials must possess the ultimate decision-making power in policy-making, free from intervention by extra-constitutional actors, including the military or powerful entities like oligarchs and foreign agencies.
Merkel’s theory of democracy assumes that stable constitutional democracies are embedded in two ways: internally and externally. From an internal perspective, he argues that all partial regimes must function effectively in a mutually supportive manner. Each regime must cooperate to prevent encroachment on each other’s authority, thereby enabling a stable liberal democracy.
Externally, these partial regimes must be embedded within the socio-economic context, civil society, and international integration. Merkel argues that a liberal democracy requires citizens to have equal and adequate socio-economic capabilities, a developed economy, the prevention of extreme poverty, a pluralistic social structure, and the fair distribution of material and cognitive resources. These factors help shield democracy and generally enhance its quality concerning the rule of law and citizen participation.
Although Indonesia claims to be a democratic nation since its inception, it has not fully realized this due to a lack of political economic incentives to uphold democratic norms. Elite oligarchs promote the idea that Indonesia’s unique culture is incompatible with liberal democracy in order to further their hidden agenda of retaining power and exploiting state resources for their own benefit (Mietzner, 2020; 2023).
