Appropriate ethic of engagement for Development professionals in the twenty first century

Ethical principles in development is necessary as development is not merely fully filled with political interests. According to Cooper (1992), ethics can be analysed from two orientations, namely deontological and teleological ethics. Deontological view considers an action is correct if the action matches with ethical principles such as freedom, justice and, verity without regard for the effects of one’s actions. Meanwhile, teleological ethics, in contrast, consider the further consequences of the enforcement ethical principles. In this frame, ethical development can be understood as a country’s efforts to improve and achieve people’s wellbeing fairly and correctly. 

In this context, it is important to understand development process by using these perspectives. Lack of local community’s participation in Recife project (Brazil) can be seen as a systemic way to conduct abuse of development. In the Recife case, the public meetings to decide upon preferred options is a matter. On the paper, the aim of the project was to establish a direct and mutual relationship with local community where they can question, complaint, and demand (Nuitjen 2013). However, although community has crucial voice, the participatory procedures were deceptive. The process stimulated patron-client relations and reflects undemocratic process where people only actively engage with formal procedures and they have no enough space to ask to deepen their understanding of the project and therefore, they the participation is only to fulfil procedures requirements (Nuijten and Koster 2012, p. 16). This shows a crisis of teleological awareness in linking political actions with public interests.

In terms of innovative development, innovation has become the key word in development today. NGOs, government, the UN tend to push innovative approach. On behalf innovation, all development sectors need to be innovative. However, the concept of it remains unclear which leads to confusing implementation (Krause 2013). For example, OECD defines innovation as implementation of improved products and UNICEF understands innovation as improving children and families’ wellbeing, and Oxford University Humanitarian Innovation Project defines innovation as process to certain context (Krause 2013). As a result, blurred concept can leads to misinterpretation of development, mistranslating what people’s means with development, and even compelling a concept of development in a project. To anticipate it, ethically, clear definition should be put in the beginning of the project.

According to Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum as cited in Crocker (1992), besides hunger, other sever deprivation indicates as ethical failures. Sen argues that ethics should be constructed dialectically with empirical experiences on what causes and hampers development including what causes poverty, exploitation, and other development failures. Sen also concerns ethical values in policy making, how policies designs should have moral basis. When a policy is designed just for decision makers’ interests, it against ethical values. Recife project is an example where influential communities who always criticise were not invited to attend the meetings and the project raises many problems. Injustice and structural poverty are constructed since in in the concept, begins from policies to implementation.

To conclude, clear concept or definition of development, policy, and implementation is necessary and development should also be based on ethical principles that highlights justice, equality, freedom, and public wellbeing. Global development ethics have been acknowledged in global programmes such as in World Development Indicators by World Bank and Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) with the goal creating global partnership for development between rich countries and developing countries. However, agent of development should reflects questions; does moral and ethical affirmation applied in global development and then translated in national programmes come from human morale boosts? Or is there any hidden agenda to exploit?

References

Akaah, I, P., (1997). Influence of Deontological Factors on Research Ethics Evaluations, Journal of Business research, Vol.39, No.2, pp.71-80.

Croker, D,A., (1992). Functioning and capability: the foundations of Sen’s and Nussbaum’s Development Ethic, Political Theory, Vol.20, No.4, pp. 584-612.

Cooper T, I., (1992), Review of the responsible administrator- an approach to ethics for the administrative role-response, Public administration review, Vol. 52, No.3, pp.311-313

Koster, M., Nuitjen, M., (2012). From preamble to Post-project Frustrations: The shaping of a Slum Upgrading Project in Recife, Brazil, Antipode, Vol.44, No.1, pp.175-196.

Nuitjen, M., (2013). The perversity of ‘Citizenship Game’: Slum-upgrading in the urban periphery of Recife, Brazil, Critique of Anthropology, Vol.33, No.1, pp.8-25.

Is the emergence of new successful local leaders to Jakarta a sign of good democracy?

*Greg Abanit Asa

The 2017 of gubernatorial election of DKI Jakarta has attracted political parties to nominate local and regional successful leaders. Ridwan Kamil (Bandung mayor)-nominated by Gerindra Party, Tri Rismaharini (Surabaya mayor)-nominated by Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDIP), Ganjar Pranowo (Central Java guvernor), and Suyoto (Bojonegoro regent)-nominated by National Mandate Party (PAN), are figures mentioned publicly.

This is not a new phenomenon. The previous election in 2012 of DKI Jakarta had shown that where Joko Widodo, the former of Solo mayor and Basuki “Ahok” Tjahaja Purnama, the former of Bangka Belitung regent were supported by PDIP and Gerindra Party to compete in the election.

Basuki “Ahok” Tjahaja Purnama’s political decision to run as an independent candidate in the next year’s gubernatorial election has made many political parties confused to seek decisive candidates.

Several figures are mentioned as the antithesis of Ahok. One of the rationales is that “Jakarta needs a leader out of Ahok.” PDIP itself tends to force its potential cadres at local levels to fight against Ahok. “Cadres should want if it is mandated by political party as a sign of loyalty,” said Eva Kusuma Sundari, senior politician of PDIP in a dialogue in Metro TV.

The more democracy fosters the development of individual capabilities the more it creates freedom (Sen 1999), one of the pillars on which democracy stands. Ahok’s political decision as an independent candidate firstly should be understood in this frame. Only within democracy free decision can be taken without any force.

However, is emerging new successful local leaders to Jakarta a sign of good democracy? There are a few things need to noted. The first, it is acknowledged that the potential of successful local leaders to be nominated in DKI Jakarta election is a consequence of democracy. This is also highly supported by bellyful against old politicians who do not bring changes. The second, this is an integral part of political party’s freedom to choose candidates.

Tendency to force potential local leaders to take part in DKI Jakarta gubernatorial election leads two opposite consequences. Indeed it makes the candidates more popular. However, the Locals have potentials to lose their best leaders which in turn hampers local development process.

As an unfinished nation (Max Lane 2008), Indonesian democracy is also in the process to be better. At least Max Lane stresses that Indonesian struggle to be no longer under colonialism and under dictatorship of President Suharto is an ongoing process. Suharto is finished but his cronies remain in the throne of power.

History in the authoritarian regime showed that the systematic efforts to nullify the role of political parties in democracy was really clear. Golkar Party was the only party that should be chosen. After New Order the hegemony of political parties to ‘imprison’ qualified candidates is so prominent. The idealism of the candidates should be confronted with wild political parties’ interests. In many cases candidates comply with political party orders and qualified candidates out of political parties have no bargaining position.

Reading examples

The polemic of the direct and indirect election of regional heads as soon as after Prabowo Subianto’s defeat in the presidential election 2014 has shown clear characteristics of political parties. The Red-and-White Coalition consisting of Gerindra, the Prosperous Justice (PKS), the National Mandate Party (PAN), the United Development Party (PPP), and Golkar Party was in the forefront of removing direct elections for regional heads to indirect election through regional legislative councils (DPRDs).

A recent example is the proposal of the revision of Law No.3/30/2002 on the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) that could weaken the anti-graft body. The revision is highly supported by the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDIP), the NasDem Party, the United Development Party (PPP), the Hanura Party, the National Awakening Party, and the Golkar party.

Exercising right to inquiry to investigate the DKI Jakarta budget irregularities amount of 12.1 trillion is also an example. Almost all parties are panic and scared of uncovering the case.

What can be learnt? Simplistically, the public (red-people) can understand that the disappointment and fear of the exposure of systemic corruption cases underline the debates. It seems also that although political party is the pillar of democracy, there is no party clean. That is why even though candidates are clean, they are trapped by political party’s manoeuvre.

Again, the emergence of new successful local leaders to Jakarta is a good sign of democracy, but we need to identify what premises behind. Personally, in this context, the argument that Jakarta needs a leader out of Ahok and cadres of party should obey party’s assignment, is based on the disappointment and fear. Disappointment because the mega coalition in the parliament cannot ‘compromise’ with the incumbent and the incumbent choose independent track, while the fear because systemic corruption involving cadres, political party, and other parties will be easily unfold.

If good cadres from local are forced based on the premises, cadres need to rethink more and more about the future of Indonesian democracy.