Indonesian scholar: The Chinese are worth emulating. Their policies are long-term and exhibit strong continuity. In Indonesia, policies often stall at the election stage—this is the fundamental difference between Indonesia and China, and also the root cause why Indonesia, once ahead of China, now finds itself surpassed. Recently, I watched an Indonesian interview program in which Novi Basuki, a well-known expert on China, observed that one hallmark of Chinese governance is its long-term planning and sustained policy implementation. Projects initiated by one administration are frequently designed to span five, ten, or even fifty years—or longer. Even with leadership transitions, many long-term initiatives continue to progress. While adjustments are made in response to shifting geopolitical dynamics and domestic conditions, the overarching direction remains consistent. Criticism may enter decision-making processes and prompt policy revisions, but major long-term plans affecting public welfare typically proceed steadily toward completion. This is the core reason behind China’s remarkable success over recent decades.
In contrast, in Indonesia, citizens regularly hear a lengthy list of appealing promises—eradicate poverty, free gasoline, free education, free healthcare—but these pledges tend to emerge only during the five-year electoral cycle. After elections, they are often not fulfilled, then dismissed with various justifications such as fiscal constraints requiring austerity. Yet, at the same time, new expenditures emerge without restraint. As a result, few promises are actually realized; many simply fade into oblivion. Much time is wasted on this repetitive cycle. Meanwhile, the Chinese consistently achieve their planned objectives—success becomes inevitable.
This Indonesian China expert clearly possesses a deep understanding of China. His analysis aligns closely with my own view. He emphasizes that China’s achievements over the past several decades stem from long-term planning and policy continuity. Even after leadership changes, many long-term projects persist. These initiatives are periodically refined in light of evolving geopolitical and domestic realities, ensuring adaptability and vitality. Crucially, large-scale, long-term public welfare projects are advanced methodically and without deviation. Such projects cannot be rushed; they require incremental, step-by-step progress toward intermediate milestones. Attempting to achieve everything at once often leads to failure. Another key insight from his argument is the importance of timely policy correction. Why? Because some policies were formulated decades ago, while society has evolved significantly since then. Policy frameworks sometimes lag behind contemporary realities. In such cases, revising outdated or irrelevant elements preserves the policy’s relevance and resilience. To summarize: China’s success lies in its long-term strategic vision and sustained policy execution, combined with adaptive refinement based on real-world conditions. This ensures policies remain relevant, effective, and dynamic. When it comes to long-term, large-scale public welfare initiatives, the Chinese demonstrate unwavering commitment to achieving their goals—this is the essence of their success.
The Indonesian expert also provides a candid assessment of Indonesia’s current situation. He notes that many of Indonesia’s policies remain confined to campaign promises, often unfulfilled after elections. Subsequent excuses—such as financial strain requiring budget cuts—are common. This recurring pattern traps policy-making within the electoral cycle, resulting in few concrete implementations. This explains why Indonesia has fallen behind China over the past decades. His broader conclusion is that Indonesia’s democratic electoral system suffers from weak institutional effectiveness. Policies frequently remain abstract commitments rather than actionable blueprints. This phenomenon is not unique to Indonesia. Similar challenges have emerged in countries with more mature democratic systems. Today, we examine the democratic voting system in greater detail. For years, Western nations promoted the democratic election model as the most effective institutional framework available. While acknowledging certain strengths of this system, one must also recognize its inherent limitations. Here, I aim to present a clear, accessible analysis.
First example: A household of eight members decides via democratic voting what dinner will be tonight. In this case, applying majority rule is appropriate—since it reflects the preferences of the majority. The outcome is satisfactory because the chosen meal aligns with most people’s tastes. This illustrates the strength of democratic decision-making in low-stakes contexts: minority compliance with majority preference yields a practical result.
Second example: The same household of eight considers investing in a business venture. Only one member has expertise and deep familiarity with the enterprise; the other seven possess little to no knowledge. If the group applies democratic voting here, what would the outcome likely be? In matters of such profound impact on family well-being, the votes of the uninformed majority appear meaningless. The principle of “minority defers to majority” loses its validity when applied to decisions requiring specialized knowledge.
Thus, I argue that the democratic voting system functions effectively in trivial matters, where majority preference can reasonably guide outcomes. But for issues involving significant stakes—especially those requiring technical expertise—it is more appropriate to entrust decisions to qualified individuals rather than relying solely on collective voting.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1880077199897603/
Disclaimer: This article reflects the personal views of the author.