CAPITALIST CLASS AS CATALIST DEMOCRACY IN CHINA AND INDONESIA

In broad outline some experts chart the democracy into several sections which include divided into procedural democracy, aggregative, deliberative and participatory. Procedural democracy can be interpreted as a democracy that is only in the context of the order without mentioning the function of democracy is to ensure citizen participation in the protection of his interests. Being a big question is when the constitution of China always mentions the protection of basic rights for citizens, including freedom of speech and freedom of association but in practice it is very limited and even then marginalized by the system of government which they say it is aimed for the political stabilization and economic. In general, the Chinese government itself was not agree with western liberalism, democracy, so the Chinese government chose to implement a democratic system where all decisions centralized in the hands of central government, thus forming a limited democratic system where people do not fully get the freedoms in the political aspects, social , and the economy. Various regulations, constitution, and the dominance of the CCP is a government tool in monitoring and controlling the implementation of democracy in China is evidence that democracy in China as a whole does not run the government is still authoritarian policies and has full legal authority to regulate public life, set the direction of Chinese democracy.

A major question to be answered is the extent to which the capitalists play a role in encouraging democracy in China and through what channels it can develop democracy in capitalism. Furthermore, according to Robinson, the capitalists will change the authoritarianism of the 'contradictions system' that took place between irrationality-authoritarianism of the government officials who are corrupt, authoritarian and irrational, will be faced with the capitalist class that has a principle of efficiency in a variety of actions or more hold on rationality-capitalism.

In the end if the two conflicting principles collide, then the government would be forced to adjust to become more rational, so this is what led to the assumption that the capitalist class can become a catalyst for democracy in a country. The logic is simple: economic activity is determined by the capital breeding, breeding is determined by the growth of capital investment, and investment occurs only if the capitalists to invest their capital. So the capitalists and also became a kind of "official" in the community. Because it considered the capitalist class has the power to influence government even further, up the assumption that the capitalist class can change the structure of the state of a country with economic power comes the change of the economic paradigm of development is encouraged by the government (led government) into the construction of market-driven (market led) led to a shift of power from states to international companies, and from the political system to economic system.

But the fact is different with what is happening in China, considered the capitalist class has not been able to build and promote democracy in China When examined more deeply, the cause of this is that, because the Chinese capitalist class is comprised of business owners, it did not consist of particular capitalist class, meaning that they do not have a common identity and interests. Some Chinese capitalist class from landlords in the past partly derived from the former government bureaucrats, and so forth. In essence, they do not have a common identity. Divergence of interests and identities is what caused the struggle to voice their opinions just so fragmented ineffective.

Assumption that the capitalist class and capitalism can foster growth and encourage rapid economic growth should be removed because basically capitalist class itself can be comfortable and thrive in a political order in China today, they can adapt to political and economic structure in China. So that it can be concluded that the power of the capitalist class does not become a catalyst for democracy. It is precisely the capitalist class which has been comfortable with the condition and structure of China as this is what hopes to maintain the existing political institutions today. This is in accordance with the idea that - prosperity paid political obedience-which until now had implemented in China.

We can conclude that the capitalist class in China has a comfortable and secure a place in the state structure in China so that the thing will be very difficult to be realized that the capitalism will come out of their comfort zone in order to build and uphold democracy in China. Logic which is built in the writing of the success rests in the capitalism survive and even thrive in the political structure of China and even structurally, politics in China became the basis for these capitalists in developed and will become impossible if the capitalists have become drivers for change constellation and structures built in the politics in China to return in its function in encouraging participatory democracy.

COMPARISON BY INDONESIA

According to Robinson, the capitalist class in Indonesia is not independent of the bourgeois government, but state officials themselves, military officers, families, relatives and their friends, as well as Sino traders close to them. Their birth as the capitalist class from their dominance of monopolies, contracts and concessions in development projects in the New Order. From there they then developed into a business empire ruler who now we know.

Armed with the power over the business when they later considered holding what is called 'structural power' of the business sector, state and society. This has the sense that, state welfare of the Indonesian population and the rise and decline of its economy increasingly defined by the capitalist. According to Robison, the problem is that their business expanded, the more they have a greater interest in the breeding of capitalism.

Let us move back to the time of Suharto's where democracy becomes a rare thing in the way of state, even at this time there is a restraint on the opinion and the ban on freedom of thought. A regime that is more inclined at an authoritarian system where political power in those days held and controlled by a figure who became president of the central course of the political system at that time.

This is more due to the foundation of thinking and orientation at that time wanted to emphasize on the development of political stability which is necessary at that time to support a successful development. Naturally the economic development and some areas have improved substantially, and indeed in fact it is running well at that time. We can not deny that the progress of economic development and the development of international political fundamental of the day went well. Indonesia stood to be a strong country economically and has a better bargaining position during this administration.

A political and economic development is very impressive. Yet, try we look more deeply, along with the development of economic development in the soeharto, was also in line with the occurrence of a moral degradation. Corruption, Collusion and Nepotism became a Mecca, and the new guidelines in conducting the Indonesian political system. Regime which should be based on democratic principles to try to build Indonesia into a system of monarchy where the king (president) and members of the royal family (the president's family members) have power over the people and the iron law also continues to be a thing that can not be avoided. The view that the capitalist class is able to encourage passage of democracy must be returned apocryphal because the capitalist class is the fact that it diminished the function of upholding democracy and democracy itself.

Yoon Hwan Shin in Demystifying the Capitalist State (1989), what is there in Indonesia is not the capitalist class, but 'the capitalists in the formation'. And they are not as strong as imagined Robison, because fixed will depend on the government. Political economy in Indonesia remains determined by the factionalism within the state bureaucracy in which the capitalists were sheltering. Essentially capitalist classes in Indonesia are not independent and still rely on government protection umbrella. Democracy is not possible with authoritarianism at home, but capitalism can be very familiar with the dictatorship. By looking at the interaction patterns in business and government employees who have roots in Indonesia, the theory of the capitalist class bias that encourages democratization is still questionable.

In this case right when Robison pointed out those patterns of interaction origin of the capitalist Indonesia is collusive and nepotism relationship with the state and military apparatus. The function of government in the economy tend to change, from serving and protecting the interests of the people to change into protective function of external interests, or in this case the capitalist class itself, even further, it will lead to socio-political distortions and exacerbated by the erosion of the foundations of social integration caused partly by a widening social and economic disparities and the increasing external domination in determining public policy.

Rationalization of this paradigm shift is the development of democratization in developing countries, in the philosophy of democracy; public policy is made as crystallization aspirations of the people, through their representatives elected in the general election mechanism democratic. The elected representatives who make policy execution, but ironically, along with the strengthening of global strengthening mechanism, there was a shift of social formations. Through the institutions of international financial institutions and the strengthening of multinational corporation in developing countries including Indonesia, the role of marginalized countries and turning them into material legal basis of capitalism operating through policy-making and protector in its implementation. In essence, capitalism in Indonesia has not succeeded in developing a participatory democracy, but democracy is capable of forming and lethal function of procedural democracy itself in its function as a protector of the interests of citizens.