Democracy and Trust

Democracy’s consolidation is not only built through proceedures and mechanisms like the relationship between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary, but through the electoral system, political parties etc. Many factors influence to what extent a country can consolidate democracy.

One of the most significant things in this context is the presence of a democratic culture. In most political science literature, as detailed by Roland Inglehart (Trust, well-being and democracy, 1999), it is shown that democracy could never grow up in a society that has no democratic culture. Inglehart believes that democratic culture is tightly related to interpersonal trust amongst citizens.

In the same tone, Francis Fukuyama in Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity has written how urgent the cultural factor is. In particular, Fukuyama writes, democracy is based on “The expectation ... of regular, honest, and cooperative behaviour, based on commonly shared norms.” These cultural values deliver social capital that allows society to co-operate. The main basis however lies in interpersonal trust. As Fukuyama said, prosperity “arises from the prevalence of trust in a society”.

In this framework civic engagement is required, not merely political engagement. Just as political engagement involves the citizen engagement with political and governmental affairs, so does civic engagement involve citizens involvement in social activities voluntarily and in a trustworthy fashion.

***

The question for Indonesia is this: Is there interpersonal trust among the citizens? There is no solid data to support this. The survey results from research by the centre of Islam and society’s research (PPIM) of IAIN Jakarta in 16 provinces in Indonesia indicates that interpersonal trust among citizens is very low. 86 percent (out of 2,017 respondent sample) of our society commonly think they ought to be aware of each other.

Nevertheless, the society’s voluntary involvement in social activities is most conspicuous in terms of religious activity in religious communities like Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) and Muhammadiyah. Here we can see that religious organizations in Indonesia are significant and influential. It indicates how immense the society’s belief is that religion is their social life’s adhesive.

Unfortunately this does not extend outwards to mediate the relations between citizens to form bonds based on interpersonal trust and tolerant attitudes. The religious communities in the form of civil society are unable to transform the civil values such as trust and tolerance to society as a whole.  Hitherto in the civil society discourse, which is called by Nurcholis Madjid as “democracy’s house,” civility requires interpersonal trust, fairness and tolerance as essential. Normatively, every religion always teaches the tolerant and interpersonal trust attitude. In Islamic nomenclature for instance, this interpersonal trust is shown in the concept of husn adz-dzon (well-presumption). As well as the tolerant attitude that is found in every religion (in Islam: Tasamuh) many verses of the Holy Book mention that each religion fosters tolerance.

The loss of trust and tolerance in our society is related to a number of problems. Political life is marked by violence. The democratisation process is accompanied by violence. The conflict between ethnic groups, cultural rivalry, discrimination against minority groups, all are marks of a society which has no interpersonal trust and tolerance. 

The paradigm which commonly appears in our minds when considering others as unequal in terms of religion, ethnic, political party choices, religious group, is that of “the others”. Problems concerning our own interests appear whenever interacting with others. This makes it difficult to co-operate with others. As Foster writes in the Subculture of Peasantry (1967:91), “So deep is the suspicion and mistrust of others, it is difficult for people to believe that no hidden meaning underlies even the most causal act”.

***

It is not easy to build interpersonal trust among citizens. According to Parsudi Suparlan, in the plural society as in Indonesia which stressed diversity of SARA (Tribe, religion and race), its citizens were born, educated, and grew up in ascriptive conditions in which force was used in the educational process. Indonesian society upholds chauvinism and ethnocentrism, that is the comprehension and treatment of others stereotypically and prejudicially. From the beginning one is taught to be proud of his tribe, religion and even family. Students are not given plural alternatives. They are not allowed to be curious but are forcibly educated through ascriptive doctrines.

Nevertheless there is still room for optimism. For example, the results of the survey, PPIM IAIN Jakarta, mentions that society still believes in religion as the adhesive force, and thus there is still room for interpersonal trust and tolerant values. Nevertheless, the religious organizations such as NU and Muhammadiyah, and the NGOs etc, ought to systematically promote trust and pluralism. The common statement of NU and Muhammadiyah in the Malino declaration a few weeks ago is an extraordinary moral statement for reducing prejudicial attitudes among Indonesian citizens. 

---

The writer is a researcher at Indonesian Institute for Civil Society (INCIS) Jakarta, and master student of Anthropology program of Indonesian university.

(Translated by Lanny Octavia, edited by Jonathan Zilberg)