A Too Tall Order for Politics and Democracy

Maybe it's just me but it's hard to read Yasraf Amir Piliang, our Indonesian post-modernism guru, in Bahasa Indonesia (not that I have ever read his English pieces, too). Take his latest (seemingly Baudrillardian) op-ed here.

Basically he wrote that ideally:
#1. Political communication is to disseminate ideas, knowledge, and political enlightenment.
#2. Democratization is to build an architecture for a well-informed, ethical, and aesthetic political society.
#3. Political action is to bring virtues of goodness, nobleness, uprightness, honor, enlightenment, and authenticity.

But, he thinks, thanks to the (stupid) media, what we now in Indonesia get are:
#1. Political communication as an arena for rhetoric, parodies, and virtual political seduction.
#2. Democratization as a scheme for banality, artificiality, and electronic media virtuality based on the logic of commercial, popularity and media celebrity.
#3. Political action that brings banality, shallowness, manipulation, and mass deception.

OK, I agree that in general Indonesian media and their ill-informed press corps indeed still have to do a lot of their homework. I also could not say anything about Baudrillardian (or for that matter, any philosophical) approach on current Indonesian media practices since I know next to nothing on it. But I have to say that Yasraf Amir Piliang's ideals on political communication, democratization, and political action above are probably over the top.

I'd rather set a lower but by no mean easy metric. Political process and democratization shall hold the ruling government accountable, in a sense that they can not just make a redistributive policies go unchecked. Democracy should enable a citizen not only exit, but also voice their disapproval as well as to root for certain political affiliation (loyalty).

Yes, it's Albert O. Hirschman's insight.

New Order's Rerun, Not

Many observers and pundits warned that the recent maneuvers of political parties and politicians to regroup and form coalition, regardless their stands in the last elections, is the sign for the return of New Order's regime.

They misunderstood the situation while too easy labeled it as the New Order's rerun.

These political observers puts too much attention to political parties and overlooked the people as voters and interest groups. Important as it is, political parties (and their coalition tendency) is not the essence of democracy. You need to look at what happens to the voters, interest groups, and the game itself.

As voter, can you voice your concern without fear of being kidnapped? Can you openly disagree with the current administration? Can you say that President is stupid in a public forum, and next day you are still walking free? Can the voters punish the political parties if they go to unwanted direction? Can the voters generate pressure group?

Lest you forget or wasn't yet aware of those repressive days, it wasn't long ago that you can not do all of these. We are by far not in New Order-like regime --no matters who wins the last election.

Addendum: Even if those pundits insist on just looking at political parties, the very possibility that the parties can easily regroup and form non permanent coalition dismisses the idea of the return of New Order era.

Unlikely Opposition

Is it theoretically feasible to expect opposition parties arise in the current Indonesian politics?

I do not think so. It likely does not pay for the parties to become opposition if voters preferences are clustered in the median of most important issues. And, in policy making, cycling is prevalent.

Interpreting Election (and Democracy)

To political pundits in the newspaper and politically literates commenting on general election, this quote might be useful:

Thus, even if the emergence of states is better explained as cooperative efforts undertaken to benefit all members of the community rather than as a power move by one group in society to exploit the rest, it is now clear that the use of the majority rule to make collective decisions must transform the state at least in part into redistributive state.

--Mueller, 2003, after discussing the positive properties on majority rule and redistribution (see Riker, 1962 and Tullock, 1959)

In other words, stop using the term (and believing in) national interest in explaining the political parties and politician behavior in general election. It is unavoidable that election is the game on who gets the larger cake out of public policy (and taxpayer's money)

The Pourers of Cold Water and The Clueless Cheerleaders

Sometime ago, Kate the manager asked me why economists are hated. She could not reconcile this fact with her own experience getting along with the baristas in this cafe, who, albeit, in her words, little bit chauvinists, are mostly harmless.

Today she told me that she finally got the answer from her summer reading of George Stigler's Memoirs of an Unregulated Economist. (Please note, with this pick of summer reading, Kate is now officially an econ geek)

Stigler wrote:

Why it has been fashionable to abuse economists (even granting the possibility that they may deserve it)? The main reason is easily named -economists have been the premier "pourers of cold water" on proposals for social improvement, to the despair of the reformers and philanthropist who support these proposals.

Thus, it is small wonder that in the midst of elections when promises of social improvements comes cheap as politicians exploit almost anything -from neoliberalism to, well, neoliberalism -; economists are more hated. Yet, the most depressing part is that many faux economists themselves are engaged in such futile promises, and call them economics. Instead of the pourers of cold water, they are bunch of clueless cheerleaders.

How Neoliberal Confusing Are You?

Nicholas Kristof of The Times posed two nonpolitical questions to tell whether you are liberal or conservative.

#1. Would you be willing to slap your father in the face, with his permission, as part of a comedy skit?
#2. Does it disgust you to touch the faucet in a public restroom?

Conservatives would tend to say no and yes respectively, and liberals the otherwise. My answer is no and no. So what am I? Neoliberal?

But wait a sec, are we talking the same liberals here? Unlike in Indonesia, in the US, liberals turns out to be the ones on the left.

Boy, this is confusing. Give my summer break --and jalapeño ice cream-- back.

The Bright Side of Possibly Lower Turnout

So you think that this year's election would see lower turnout. Is it a bad sign?

Imagine you find yourself on the election day, which also happens to be an official public holiday in Indonesia. You have option of either going to vote or doing something else, like spending time at the zoo, reading the Watchmen, listening to Efek Rumah Kaca, or even just a simple good lazy afternoon nap. What would you do?

The catch is here: That something-else becomes more precious as your wage rate goes up. If your wage rate is higher, you have to sacrifice more money for not working and just reading Anna Karenina.

So on April 9, when you are forced not to work and decide to have these something-else, instead of going to the voting booth like what you did five years ago; it may mean that your wage rate are actually higher than five years ago. (And political complainer literate like you, or pundits in the media, should be happy to know it)

Who would vote then? The ones who are less ignorant to politics and the ones with lower wage rate --who hope election to bring better wage. The former would devote more time and the latter have better incentive to learn relevant information on politicial party and politicians. As a result, a better election quality.

Consequences of Obama's victory in Indonesia?

What are the likely consequences of Obama's victory to Indonesia? Does the country really mean much more to US now because the new president happened to live here? ("Oh, he was once lived here." Well so what?). Will protectionism in Indonesia be on rise again? ("Look, that new president isn't so friendly to global free trade. Why aren't we? After all the crisis requires more and more protection." From what appears in the media lately, the sentiment is growing. Obama victory might give more ammunition to that).

In Defense of Eko Patrio

Saiful Mujani of LSI and Freedom Institute worried that the comedian Eko Patrio might win over the economist Didiek Rachbini for a legislative seat. He wrote in a column in Tempo weekly:

In this case, the skill to make people laugh is electorally more valuable than the Professor's economics expertise. The problem is that Eko, in comparison to Didiek, maybe way more familiar to the voters in general. Although Didiek is more competent for legislation, voters do not know him and his competency. Voter's cognitive and behavior, or political market, determine the politician's political fate.

He also proposes more regulation on the law on general election to include competency, expertise background, and integrity requirement for lawmaker candidates in order to fix the current political market.

I am no political scientist. But I think Saiful made a wrong comparison here. The game is not about less competent Eko against more competent Didiek Rachbini. For voters, it is about Eko (and his celebrities friends) against those hundreds of unfamiliar, (more) incompetent and yet corrupt politicians that now occupy Senayan --to whom many voters share the disgust.

I'd say perhaps the current political market works. It drives the unfamiliar and incompetent politicians out. And arguably they might be less corrupt than the existing politicians for a good reason: the cost of getting caught is very high for them, that is, not only the five-years political career, but also their lucrative lifetime celebrity career. As public figures, they are also subject to more closer public scrutiny --think of those bloody annoying gossip shows.

Voters might be rationally ignorant, but maybe not that stupid. And on the idea that the celebrities candidacy breaks the party's internal reward mechanism for their 'real' politicians, you should ask those party leaders (themselves the 'real' politicians) why on earth they recruit Eko and friends on the first place --if they think they will be out-voted.

And trust me, Eko will not easily win because his opponents, the current 'real' politicians, are equally, if not more, funny in their own way.

Who's Afraid of the Latte Liberals?

I came across the words "latte liberal" while reading an article in The Economist on the US presidential election --which is, by the way, waaaay better than this so-called analysis in Kompas daily.

The Latte Liberals are the term used by Hillary Clinton camp to describe young and educated supporters of Obama. Geographically, they are mostly located in big cities in Northeast and West Coast. Surely it is a variant of the old word of "anti-establishment east upper side Manhattanites", whom Woody Allen's films represent.

And this does not refer to the "neo liberals", to whom some of us love to hate for being responsible for our economic problems. Liberals in the US are the Democrats, who, in economic sphere, most of the time, are for rather high tax and more subsidy and transfer --hence less ardent free market supporter than their fellow Republicans.

Latte liberals are on the rise here. And actually I am curious: to whom our own latte liberals supports for our next President election? Also, if you are the candidate, would you really take them into account as important voters?

But, in the first place, who are actually our latte liberals?

(Okay, I hear you, Co. Latte ain't coffee. Can't agree more. And you Manager, don't say that latte liberals are bunch of snotty people. Likely, they are our cafe's target market)

Where is the Market?

OK, I need your help. I fail to understand this:

"Philosophically, what I imagine as Indonesian version of Social Market Economy is to put the Family (?) (my note: does he mean Household?) as the dominant element in development paradigm, along with the State. European welfare states, so far, marginalize the Family, along with Market; and set the State as dominant role. On the other hand, neo liberal states, such as the US, assume the Market as the dominant role, while the State and Family marginal."

--liberal translation of an op-ed "Kaum Muda" in Kompas, December 4, 2007.

If he says that it is the Family and the State that matters, why he uses the term Social Market Economy? Where is the Market?
And on his assertion on European and US economy, I don't know what to say. Really.

Funny Pundit on Chicken Soto

Due to some costumers demand, I will not serve muffins this time. But we have chicken soto as the substitute.

Suppose you want to know what 150 million adults prefer: chicken soto or chicken satay. What would you do?

I read an observer, -or pundit, whatever-, has done the following: He asked 50 leading figures, or social activists, what they want to have, and found out that only four are for chicken satay, two order completely different stuff (chicken kebab), and fourty-four want chicken soto. Then he concludes that people want chicken soto.

But how on earth that he is sure that chicken soto is indeed what people want? Statistician, or anyone who ever have had Statistics 101, will quickly point out a whole range of sampling methodology issues.

Even putting that statistical problem aside, what exactly that fourty four activits mean by chicken soto? Is this the one with light yellow soup or thick coconut-milk, with rice vermicelli or not, with beansprout or not? We have so many variants, in so many localities, of chicken soto.

Our pundit also lamented that we are on the verge of doomsday. In one aspect he said that we do not get bigger as fast as Argentina. But actually we do get bigger (around 6.4 percent this year) and at the higher rate than our closer peers in the neighbourhood (4.9 percent). Not bad at all, leave alone the fact that we fell severely ill nine years ago and lost weight by 13 percent in just one single year.



OK, OK, it's in Kompas daily, Analisis Politik, Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007

Update:
Oh no, today somebody told us that what they mean by chicken soto is actually not a chicken soto. It was a terrible adaptation of German soup. (Kompas, Opini, page 4, Wed, Nov 21, 2007)

Economist wanted

For Sutiyoso's presidential running mate.

It's non-party time!

A few weeks ago Aco, in exegesis, was ranting about 'independent candidate.' I agree with him on one thing: the term 'independent candidate' is oxymoronic. But I am less pessimistic with the idea of allowing a candidate to run without having to be nominated by political parties. Let's call her or him non-party candidate.

Aco wrote:

Whoever you are, you can't run a populace alone. You would need support, cheer, organization, funding and all that. And that my friend, is called, 'party'.

To begin with, modern democracy is representative democracy. Political parties are, supposedly, the bridge between the people (constituents) with representatives. A simple way (well, not too simple perhaps) to explain the situation is using the principal-agent setting. Parties act on behalf of their constituents, who have a set of objectives. But parties have also their own objectives to maximize. To align both sets of objectives, a certain incentive-punishment mechanism needs to be developed, which we call 'election.'

Another way to look at the role of parties is to draw an analogy with real estate agents. Like realtors, parties help minimizing the search cost for a candidate, as well as help marketing a candidate to the potential buyers.

However, in any principal-agent settings there are potential drawbacks. Due to a broken incentive structure, agent may not maximize principal's objectives. In a worse situation, agent may fully ignore the principal. Of course, we can fire sack or realtors, company executives or football managers. That can happen if the market of realtors, executives or managers is competitive enough.

What if it is not? What if parties become, or establish, a cartel-like political structure? Like any cartels, political cartel extracts consumer's (voter's) surplus and limiting choices by creating a barriers to entry for newcomers (or for new ideas). What can be done? In any economic textbook, the solutions for cartels are: a) issue regulation that dissolves cartels; b) create competitive pressure, by promoting domestic competition and/or free trade.

This is the situation in which, I shall argue, independent non-party candidate can be a solution (note that I am not claiming it is the solution). Yes, it may work, it may not. There are theories to justify either. Nevertheless, we can do empirical research on it: just compare regions (provinces or districts) where non-party candidates won, versus whose winners are traditional, party candidates. First, of course we need to define the dependent variables. It can be economic growth, corruption, speed in poverty reduction, some health or education measures, and so on. If we have enough data set, we can do a regression, controlling for region fixed effects.

Yes, there may be endogeneity. The economic, social and political situation in a region may lead to independent candidate winning (or losing, or even not bothering to run) the election. But there are some empirical strategies can be considered, like what Benjamin Jones and Ben Oken did in their forthcoming paper on leadership and economic growth (by way of Dani Rodrik).

As my concluding note: let's not making this independent non-party candidate a big fuss. Just make it possible, let the market (voters) decide whether they should trust them, or retain the hope for political parties. I believe, in the end people would choose party candidates. See the fate of non-party candidates in established democracies everywhere.

Powered by ScribeFire.