Food Crisis: Hungry Citizens are Overthrowing Governments

BREAD TALK. The surge in foods and basic commodities price has sparked public unrests in many parts of the world especially in Mideast countries like Jordan, where a citizen here is seen using a baguette bread to vent his anger to Jordanian government during a street protest.

(photo by Kahlil Marzaawi)

On how to deal with middle and working class people, here’s one good advice that all world leaders (or dictators), could listen: Give them sufficient food and they would give less trouble for you –because food, after all, is the most important necessity that they need.

It was in the year of 1998 when working and middle class Indonesians conquered the streets to end the 32-year autocratic reign of Soeharto, but before those people were longing for the taste of democracy and liberty, it was actually their hungry stomach and bitter economic condition that provoked the transition in the first place.

Following the monetary crisis in 1997, the Indonesian economy was in its nadir and the ASEAN region was infected with currency crisis that was originated in Thailand; which eventually led to massive-scale currency depreciation in neighborhood countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, and Philippines.

In Indonesia, the crisis caused the price of basic commodities to rise beyond the reach of common people, and eventually increased the number of Indonesians who lived below poverty line. As people were pointless at that time and had no one to blame for their suffering, they challenged the autocracy and look for democracy as the solution.

Would Soeharto lose his power if the 1997 economic crisis did not occur? Of course, there were several other factors that contributed to his downfall. But if working-class mothers were not struggling to buy rice and basic necessities at that time, surely their husbands would not have the motive to illegally loot shopping stores and their children would not be so interested to join the street protests.

In November last year, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) published Food Outlook report and warned against the rising price of basic commodities and the looming food crisis as bleak outlook in 2011.

Less than four months after the ‘prophecy’ was published, it has had its tolls already, as surging global price of foods and basic commodities triggered public uproars which were responsible for the ousting of dictatorial regimes in Tunisia and Egypt, and put other governments in balance.

Widespread corruption, unjust elections, and undemocratic government have long become concern for citizens in Mideast; but it was not until the symptoms of food crisis 2011 materialized that both Tunisian and Egyptian people truly fed up with their governments and decided to take the matter with their own hands.

In Tunisia, inflated food price and bloated unemployment rate were actually the initial motives behind the public unrest that led to the resignation of president Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali. The domino effect then went to Egypt, where people there ultimately realize that they are also experiencing the same problem as their neighbor in the west.

Egypt is the world’s largest importer on wheat; a commodity which has seen its price soaring for more than 50% since last year. In the country, food security has always become a major issue as Egyptians spend about 40% of their monthly income on food; compared to 28% for the Chinese or 6.1% for the Americans in estimations made by the US Department of Agriculture.

When the largest fraction of your income is spent on food, surely you will be the party that suffers the most if there is a hike in food price. Hence, makes no wonder if the Egyptians were among the firsts to take the bull by the horns:

“Hey life is getting harder these days, so why don’t we try the same thing with Husni Mubarak, just like the Tunisians did with their president?”

True, other causes also contribute to this 2011 Mideast revolution; such as greedy tyrants who had been clinging in their offices for too long, or ingrained corruption culture within the government that those tyrants have nurtured.

Or perhaps the influence of social media, which also deserves recognition as seemingly regimes in China, Iran, and North Korea so far have been able to evade the public uproar because their leaders have been notorious for isolating their own people from the internet.

But food crisis irrefutably played a part on the uprisings that lead to the 2011 Mideast revolution. Just recently, Rabah Arezki from the IMF and Markus Brückner from the University of Adelaide publish a research paper that confirms the relationship between international food prices and government stability. Interestingly, their research concludes that there is a positive correlation between food price increase in low-income countries and the likelihood of civil conflict and anti-government demonstrations.

The research is proven true and commonsensical in many ways. For instance, if you were about to join an anti-government demonstration, which issue that you are more likely to join: corruption or rising food prices?

For some people the answer may differ, but if surging price of basic commodities start to affect your earnings and your family, you will have a tendency to choose the latter than the former. Without doubt, people are more likely to go berserk on matters that directly affect them, such as rising food prices, compared to matters like corruption or others.

FAO recently reported that food price had reached a new record high in February; and the world is seemingly welcoming a resurgence of food crisis in 2011. The case of overthrown governments in Egypt and Tunisia is tangible proof that governments have indeed become more susceptible during these times.

This is a serious warning for all immortal-looking dictators from North Korea to Myanmar whose hungry citizens are perhaps next in line to demand revolutions.

This article was published in The Jakarta Post on Monday, March 21 2011

In Australia, It Takes Only One to Tango

STALEMATE. Australians may have just witnessed one of the most exciting federal elections in the country’s history, but the power divide between Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott in parliament would not be the outcome they were keen to have.

A well-known idiom it takes two to tango definitely does not refer to politics.

At least that’s what we could conclude from Australia’s parliament composition as a result of a nail-biting federal election drama, in which Julia Gillard from Labor Party and Tony Abbot from National Coalition acted as the main protagonists.

In the election, there were weeks when a hung parliament was imminent as both Gillard and Abbot shared the same number of seats. In a country with a de-facto two-party parliamentary system like Australia, a brittle situation from hung parliament –a condition where parliament is divided and neither political party has an absolute majority against each other– is the last thing that any prime minister would want to have.

Fortunately, after weeks of vagueness, Australians could breathe a sigh of relief when Labor’s Gillard finally secured 76 seats (the number required for outright victory from the 150 seats in the parliament) with last-gasp support from Australian Greens Party and three independent members. This ends Australia’s political limbo, even though the predicament is far from over as Gillard’s road ahead is still paved by wobbly rocks.

The major reason why some are skeptics about the stability of Australia’s future government is a parliament with ruling party has no supreme power against the opposition could prevent the government to perform at full throttle.

This could be nasty: during times when government policies urgently require approval from the parliament, politics intervention from the strong opposing party may be the hinderer that stands in the way of the implementation of such important policies.

As a country that reels through both the era of autocracy and democracy (and also experiences the thorny transition between), several examples could be drawn from Indonesia, Australia’s closest neighbor to the north, in terms of parliamentary matter.

In our not-so-distant past, former Indonesian president Suharto can run a top-down politics and an extremely stable government because he had almost no one who can oppose him in the parliament. In addition to the autocratic culture that was stemmed from his leadership style, the fact that Golkar party always came out victorious with overwhelming support in every elections led the party to earn most of the seats in the parliament, which allowed Suharto to implement government policies as he pleases.

Soeharto provides excellent example that the bigger power that a ruling party has in the parliament, then the bigger chance of government policies could be implemented smoothly. In this situation, political interference from opposing parties is unlikely to happen because of the overwhelming power that the ruling party boasts in the parliament.

Today, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono did try to do just that by embracing other parties to form a giant coalition which hold 75 percent of total seats from the parliament, with expectation that such powerful coalition would weaken the bargaining power of the opposition and ensure the stability of his second-tenure government.

So what would happen in a situation like Australia’s, where a parliament is divided into two fractions, with the ruling party only has wafer-thin majority against the opposition? If you were the leader of ruling party in Australia like Julia Gillard with current parliament’s composition, then in the future you can expect your powerful opposition in parliament to confront and grill you every time you come out with new government policies.

And with her experience as former minister and policymaker, Gillard surely knows that politics could potentially turn very filthy. Several lecturers in my university had experience of being a policymaker in the government, and some of them once uttered of how a crucial economic policy could lose its timing and credibility, and eventually become ineffectual, since it usually has to undergo an arduous and protracted process of Indonesian politics first before it can be approved by the lawmakers.

In United States, very often Barack Obama had to endure torrid times first from the Republican lawmakers before his policies could be put into actions. Indeed, providing check and balance to the government by confronting the ruling party is precisely the job of opposing party, like the Republican. But in academics perspective –particularly in economics field where timing does matter and economic policies needs to be implemented just in time– there are times when a too strong opposition party leads to lengthy political process, which ultimately reduce the efficiency of the government itself.

Yet in 2010 Gillard is not the only world’s newly-elected leader facing difficult challenges. Some of the peers with same fate as hers including Philippines’ Noynoy Aquino, who was just elected this year, but already he has to deal with the problem of the national security and recovering Philippines image to the world following the Hongkong tourists carnage incident.

Or Colombia’s new president Juan Manuel Santos, who presided over as president amidst the growing domestic tension between the country and guerillas and drug kingpins, as well as the problem with the war threat from Hugo Chavez because of the infamous 2010 Colombia-Venezuela diplomatic crisis.

New Briton Prime Minister David Cameron is also unfortunate to occupy 10 Downing Street this year in the middle of anti-British sentiment among environmentalists around the world following British Petroleum fiasco at Gulf of Mexico.

Having only a slim power difference against her opposition in the parliament, with even a single lawmaker defecting could turn her plans upside down, the government during Gillard’s tenure is highly fragile indeed. In the world where encountering an uphill battle is becoming a trend for every newly-elected leader this year, how to tame her stronger-than-ever opposition in the parliament is the test for our beloved neighbor’s first female prime minister to overcome.

This article was published in The Jakarta Post on Saturday, September 25 2010