Democracy only works when citizens make informed decisions

Yenny Wahid, Director of the Wahid Institute

The following transcript is from an interview conducted by Genron NPO President Yasushi Kudo with Ms. Yenny Wahid. Content has been edited and re-arranged for length and clarity. Kudo began the interview by asking Ms. Wahid her opinion on the current state of democracy in the world.

In times of disruption, many people seek stability and strong, decisive leaders

Yasushi Kudo (Kudo below):
Democracy seems to be in retreat around the world. What are your opinions about this development?

Yenny Wahid (Wahid below):
I think we are now in the era of disruption, so many things are changing in people's lives. Democracy by its own characteristic is always dynamic. It allows for the voices, for the noises in society to be heard. It can be very intimidating and very scary for many people. And in the era of disruption, with social media especially, there are too many noises. So, people crave for stability, for order, for more quietness, even though they will have to exchange it with less freedom. Disruption can be technological, and can be brought out by pandemic. Some of that means that economically, some people are left behind. Some people might no longer have jobs because they are replaced with machines.

People want stability. They want a strong leader. They want someone who tells them to do this, or do that. They want someone who feels their fear, who gives them a direct answer, who gives them a simple explanation. Even though it might be simplistic, they want to hear an answer to their misery when their job is lost, and when their identity is under threat. That's why democracy is in retreat in many countries because people are looking for more stability, people are looking for someone who can provide them with answers. There is too much noise. Too many disruptions in their lives. They want stability.

Kudo:
Some people are saying democratic systems have been inadequate in implementing pandemic countermeasures. Do you think that authoritarian governments have been more effective in handling the pandemic?

Democracy considers various opinions, monitors leaders through checks and balances

Wahid:
In democracy, there are many factions that we have to talk to. It's not very efficient. It's very time-consuming. You have to talk to many people. You have to listen to many perspectives. You have to come to consensus, and sometimes when you cannot find a compromise, you have to vote on it. It's a long process and sometimes people just argue non-stop.

If a strongman, says, "This is the solution," it's very appealing because it's more effective. The problem with strongmen is...the issue of accountability. The beauty of democracy is that it allows for so many noises - the mechanism of checks and balances. You make sure that leaders do not do what they want at the expense of others. But with strongmen, they don't even bother to listen. For some people that is very appealing. Especially in a time of pandemic, in a time of crisis, they want someone who can make a quick decision for them, who doesn't even care about what others think.

Democracy is a dance of retreat and advancement - it is all about minimizing the price paid by society

Kudo:
The world is still unstable and seems to be heading for greater division. How do you think democracy will fare in the future?

Wahid:
It's going to be a dance. Two steps forward, one step backward. It's always like that. There will be setbacks. There will be times where people will be swayed by the concept by a strong leader. But after that, they will realise that they have to sacrifice so much. When that happens, when that strong leader does not bring economic progress, then there will be reform and it will revert back to democracy.

In my opinion, democracy, in the long run, will always be there, but in between there will be setbacks. What we have to make sure of is that when we get it back, it doesn't cost too much for the society and for the country.

A strong leader has to bring prosperity to be able to survive, as in the case of China, and the case of Singapore. If you don't bring prosperity, like in the case of Donald Trump and the last few months of his presidency when the crisis hit with COVID and the economy was hit, then it doesn't work anymore. People want change.

The era of the US defending democracy is over

Kudo:
At the beginning of this year, the US Capitol was attacked, and democracy suffered greatly. The Biden administration is currently calling for a restoration of democracy, and I was wondering what your thoughts are on this matter.

Wahid:
Looking in America, we see the same thing happening in many countries in the world, including my country, in Indonesia. This is the rise in identity politics in society, and the use of strong language to provoke the masses based on that sense of identity. The attack on the Hill happened because President Trump tweeted to his followers that their value system is under attack - that once the Biden administration comes into power, there will be many changes to the values of the American people.

In particular, the conservative element in American society feels very strongly about issues that the democrats are championing. For example, the issue of LGBT, gender identity, etc. For them, it's an attack on their value system. That's why they felt like they had to defend that, by force if necessary. They felt that democracy does not allow them the mechanism to defend themselves anymore. They lost already, so it had to be reclaimed by force.

When it comes to the Biden administration and his promise to restore democracy, I think the experience with many previous administrations ...was that America has its own interests at heart. If it serves them, they will come to the defence of democracy. If it doesn't serve them, they might turn a blind eye to what happens in other parts of the world. So, the era of asking America to step in when there is a conflict, when there is a threat to democracy, is over. Every country has to defend themselves. We cannot count on America to be the police of the world anymore.

People fed with false information make poor decisions

Kudo:
Few Asian countries can be called democracies today, and democracy in Asia is in retreat. What should we be doing now?

Wahid:
We are now in this unprecedented time in history, with the four revolutions that have happened in a single human lifetime. After electricity was the steam engine, and then the third revolution was computation. But now we've got all these digital interconnections happening which make the exchange of ideas happen very fast. And people do not have the time to digest all of the information that comes into their smartphones or other gadgets. It can be quite unsettling; it can be quite confusing for many people. Especially for people who haven't developed critical thinking. They will take whatever comes their way as it is. Hence, fake news is very dangerous. Fake news is very dangerous. Hoaxes and fake news are the real threat to democracy.

Democracy only works if the citizens make informed decisions, if they are informed about the issues. But if they are being fed with false information, they will make the wrong decision. That is the problem with mankind now in the era of democracy, we are faced with so much fake news, so many hoaxes, so much false information, that we don't have our own filter to deal with the million pieces of information we consume every day.

We also have politicians who appeal to the emotions of their constituents, so our decision-making process now is no longer rational; it's all emotional. That's why the issues of identity, religion, race become very powerful . They appeal to the emotional state of people's minds, and they make decisions based on that, not based on rational data. It's not about programs, or policies or track records. It's about emotions. It's about politicians who can inflame the population, can provoke the population using emotional language. Some politicians create enemies. Enemies from abroad. That's very effective also. You become heroes. That's the state we're in right now.

Radical non-state actors are threatening Indonesian democracy

Kudo:
What are the challenges facing democracy in Indonesia?

Wahid:
We also feel that democracy is declining in Indonesia. Before, the situation was much easier to understand. The people who were against democracy were the state. The people who committed human rights abuses were the state.

But now, it's not just the state, we also have non-state actors who have committed human rights abuses, who have committed oppression, committed many acts of intimidation and radicalism. Now it's non-state actors - organizations who use religious rhetoric, people who use racial identity as rhetoric. That's the challenge we face in Indonesia: the rise of non-state actors who are very powerful, and who commit violations. This is happening not just in my country, but in other places around the world. For example, the Proud Boys group in the United States is an example of a militia formed as a reaction against the Black Lives Matter movement. You have all these groups that are very powerful, and very influential.

We are trying to empower the voice of the moderates. We have to be more proactive in creating positive narratives in society. And the state apparatus, especially the security forces, have to be firm against these people. They cannot allow any group who use the issues of identity, religion, etc. to influence society.

If they commit a crime, they have to be arrested. The problem is that many politicians are afraid that they might lose their constituents, so they actually provoke these kinds of thoughts.

But you have to be firm. When there is an attack, you have to deal with it, you have to be firm about it, the police have to arrest anyone who committed any crime. Regardless of whether it's based on political issues or religion or race or whatever. You have to be firm.

In the case of Indonesia, what we are trying to do is encourage the police to be more decisive. We are also telling our politicians to stop using rhetoric that divides the nation, to stop using the emotional language based on religious issues, race issues, etc. We have to be critical of anyone who uses that kind of rhetoric because it has the potential to divide society. We cannot allow that to happen.