Democracy is Not a Luxury for the Paupers

Democracy is Not a Luxury for the Paupers - In the wake of the recent news reports of shocking corruption by Gayus Tambunan, an officer of the Tax Department, the Indonesian population has had its already flimsy trust in government diminished even further. Discontent has manifested in many Indonesians’ reluctance to pay tax. Gayus Tambunan is suspected to have embezzled IDR 28 billion (roughly USD 3.1 million). This is only the tip of the iceberg. This case is predicted to reveal more officers involved in the web of corruption. Democracy is being put to the test, and it appears to have failed once again.

Democracy now seems to be a golden ideal upon a pedestal; it is beautiful to behold, but it is never yours. Democracy, having its etymological root demos (common people, or ‘district’) and kratos (rule, or ‘strength’), is a form of struggle against the elite ruling power. In other words, democracy is a tool designated for ordinary people, with the connotation of being poor, uneducated or belonging to the lowest castes, to fight against the elite aristocrats with power, money and influence. In effect, democracy is the lever for the paupers to correct imbalances. One function of democracy is manifested in the State’s power to impose taxes. One of taxation’s raison d’être was to correct economic imbalances by distributing money from the rich to the poor in form of infrastructure, public works, and other projects. This is where the irony lies.

First, for the paupers in Indonesia, the taxation system is a nightmare. On the one hand, they barely have enough food to eat. On the other hand, taxes they pay are utilized for the benefit of economically privileged players. If we examine the National Budget Plan or ‘APBN’ as passed by parliament, budget allocation for the benefit of economically privileged players is more substantial than that for the benefit of the paupers. In practice, the situation is even worse. The education budget, for instance, is to be at least 20% of the state expenditure by constitutional mandate; the reality is that this money has always been reduced to 40% of that amount (i.e., less than 10% of the budget) in terms of what actually reaches the intended beneficiaries. Presumably, the rest goes to corrupt bureaucrats’ pockets or similar kinds of administration overhead.

In a nutshell, the poor are taxed, yet the money is allocated for the benefit of the businesses owned by the rich. Government will present the counter-argument that creation of big industries, in return, provides jobs for the paupers. This is not an excuse. If we draw the matrix of income or wealth distribution, it remains utterly unjust. How much of the money or other assets that should belong to the paupers are absorbed by the businesses of the rich in the process of translating tax receipts into the paupers’ prosperity? A lot. This theory works in the same fashion as price increases work: “The longer the distribution, the higher the price for consumers.” The fact that tax receipts take such a long path before they are eventually translated into daily needs is the crux of taxation issues in Indonesia, especially when the funds are circulated long enough among the upper-level players. If the premise is that democracy is manifested through, among other forms, taxation, then it has to provide wealth for all. Interesting to note, the substitute diction for state is commonwealth, inscribed to mean that the rationale for the creation of a state is to provide wealth for commoners. Since taxation does not create wealth for commoners in a fair sense, and ironically allocates money from the poor to the rich, it does not serve the democratic purpose. Therefore you cannot blame the paupers for not paying tax.

Second, for the middle or upper middle class, they are encouraged not to pay taxes and this is the reason why. First, since they can no longer trust government to redistributing the wealth for everyone’s sake, they should redistribute it by themselves. The idea is as simple as to “take over the government’s function,” which it fails to perform. Second, if the government argues that the money is needed for redistribution to the needy, you distribute it yourself. The dummy mathematical calculation would be “the money you should have paid for taxes,” you should distribute in your immediate surroundings, in particular, for the benefit of the needy. Buy them books, put them in schools, or provide a health service. If you think that the amount of tax you pay is too much or unreasonable, e.g. 5%, you cut it to 3% or 4% and distribute that money in any manifestation to the needy. I am certainly not advocating anarchy; I am saying that society may want to be part of the solution rather than being part of the problem.

The two points above conclude that “Democracy is not a luxury for the paupers.” This illustration improves along with improving economic conditions of a person or family. When people are poor, democracy is just a tool to climb up the social ladder. For those paupers, democracy is not about striking a balance of power or a healthy functioning government, it is simply how to survive until the next day. If you take a look at a popular political campaign, Indonesia has shifted from a dictatorship to uninformed general elections. The poor are either unaware or unable to do anything about it. For them, the choice is to eat to survive until the next day or die while trying to fight for their supposedly democratic rights. As a human being, I cannot imagine how to make such a choice and the mutually exclusive and exhaustive options are not their fault.

For the last remark describing the irony of democracy “Do not tell me “what you know about” and “how you think you can deal with” those paupers’ plight when you are sitting in five-star hotels in sumptuous and esoteric conferences conducted in the name of democratic government.”

Source: en.hukumonline.com , Friday, May 07, 2010

Share on FacebookPlus on Google+

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER