There is an interesting discussion that is going on Facebook - ‘Emerging
Leadership group’ - that questions the
path of development taken by Timor Leste. It is interesting to spend some time
on the thoughts and comments because the terms ‘capitalism’, ‘communism’ and
‘mauberism’ recurrently appear in Timorese public discussions and political rhetoric.
Now, the intryguing thing is that these terms have been used plainly without
any clear definition provided by the commentaries, which in turn raises more
questions. For instance, one of the comment questions what people mean by the
term ‘Mauberism’. Otherwise, two other terms, capitalism and communism are
widely used in Timorese socio-political parlance but there is no critical
assessment on the terms in relation to Timorese economic development.
 |
| Topic for discussion by Aze Aparicio |
First of all, there is no such thing as a Mauberism model of
development or at least I haven’t heard of its principles that could be used as
road map to development. Maubere is a
local word for a native-male man, often associated with being dirty,
uncivilized, dark skin, etc. I am not
going further to develop its semantic meaning and or its uses during the Portuguese
period. Nonetheless, the term was used by the founding fathers of the country
to represent Timorese and advance their cause for self-determination. Although
not all Timorese want to be called Maubere people – some rather prefer to
simply be called Timorese – the term unites Timorese of various social groups
and descendants for a common cause, which was to be free from colonization. In
one of Colloquium at the UNTL a few years ago, Dr. Mari Alkatiri turned down
the idea of over emphasizing the term ‘maubere’ (or mauberism) because it was
arbitrarily used by the early revolutionary activists to emulate nationalism
and advance Timor’s case at the international stage. The FRETILIN party is
credited for employing the word to mobilize the independence movement. In post
independence, the term is widely used by other political parties during
campaign periods to attract voters.
 |
| Maubere! who do you vote for? |
Now, left with Capitalism and Communism, the question is which system does the country implement? These two terms are also loosely
used in Timorese conversations. Capitalism, a mode of production that relies so
much on surplus value, has had negative connotations in Timor Leste. It is closely associated with the terms
‘colonialism’, ‘imperialism’ and ‘fascism’, which Timorese aimed to overthrow by revolution. During political campaigns or protests we often hear young
Timorese yelling “Abaixo colonialismo, imperialismo e capitalismo, etc.” Otherwise,
after the independence, there are more sporadic voices of people accusing certain Catholic Church’s practices to be capitalistic or, at least, practicing
petit bourgeois, something contrary to what it preaches. That is, on one hand, it preaches
poverty but on the other hand they live from the alms of the poor people.
Otherwise, we often hear political rhetoric from western capitalist states or
local churchgoers who labeled FRETILIN or, at least, its leaders to be communist. It is now a public knowledge how the western superpower countries
used that branding to support the Indonesian invasion or, in the case of the 2005
church-organized rally, people shouted ‘Alkatiri comunista’, etc. The good news
is that neither the church is capitalist nor Dr. Mari Alkatiri (FRETILIN) is
communist.
 |
| Adam Smith vs. Karl Marx |
Back to the question, which of the two (or three) systems does the
country adopt in its development policies? The answer is none of the above.
The fact is, Timor Leste does not fully prescribe to either
capitalist or communist principles for its economic development. The economic
and development policies adopted this far has been a mix of all the above. This
is because none of the two antagonistic cold-war systems has succeeded in
leading countries to long-term economic growth and full development.
First, communism is a Utopian ideal. Marx’s suggests communism to be
the final stage of all systems of development. After the continuous class
struggle that led to the failures of previous systems, feudalism and
imperialism, the then capitalism would fail too to be replaced by communism where
the majority class, proletariat, owns the means of production. However, no
country, not even the former USSR, has succeeded in achieving communism. Lenin and Stalin’s Bolshevik party failed in
leading the then USSR to achieve Marx’s idea of communism, and so has Mao’s
China. Despite Mao’s effort to quickly transform China to rapid
industrialization, which is the necessary condition for socialism and then to communism,
his economic policies such as ‘great leap forward’ failed and brought the country
into horrible famine in its history. Instead, both Russia and China hid under a communist jacket and applied state socialism to be where they are now. I don’t
see Timor Leste is going down that path as yet.
Second, the country is not practicing full capitalism either. Capitalism
has its own internal contradiction too, which the global financial crisis could
serve as an example. But in Timor Leste’s development case, it is still far to
implement capitalism or its principles because the system depends on external
factors such as infrastructures, laws and regulations. Capitalism, which is
characterized by mass production, market liberalization and cheap labor, could
only flourish where there is good infrastructure in place, well-regulated
economic activities and high reserve of unskilled labor. Instead, Timorese
state has been the main and biggest investor in almost all sectors of
development.
So, what system does Timorese governments adopt, then? The five
consecutive governments have applied a little bit of the good things from both
capitalist and socialist principles. The first constitutional government
focused its program on, just to name few, basic infrastructure and services
such as clean water, free education and basic health services. This could be seen
as Mauberian approach because it deals with that of which really basic to the
people. The fourth and fifth constitutional governments, with their fiscal
flexibility, took up more rigorous projects in infrastructure along with
financial services and social welfare. Many call this type of mix as ‘middle-way’
system (some call it social democrat idealism). That is, on one hand, the
government is taking the capitalist role in investing heavily in infrastructure,
goods and services that is the realm of the private sector or capitalists, so to
speak. It provides mechanisms for private sector empowerment through programs like
Pakote Referendum, PDDs, Concorcio Nacional Timorense (CNT), providing
loans/credit to small enterprises and many more. In the area of agriculture, the
government is also involving indirectly in production output through subsidies,
which is not allowed in a neoliberal-free trade system. Apart from these
production related activities, the state is also involved in stimulating demand
through social welfare programs (payments to veterans, the Aged, widows and the
orphans) and many more. This public sector expenses will eventually stimulate growth that
pave the way for the emersion of a strong private sector.
This middle way has been practiced, at different levels, in Scandinavian countries like Sweden, Norway, Denmark as well as our neighbouring Asian countries such as Singapore, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan (Others call it state interventionism). The objective of this middle way practice is to achieve economic development without having to patronise any of the two systems. It is to break away from ‘golden strait jacket’ and tailor it according to the stages of Timor Leste’s development.
This middle way has been practiced, at different levels, in Scandinavian countries like Sweden, Norway, Denmark as well as our neighbouring Asian countries such as Singapore, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan (Others call it state interventionism). The objective of this middle way practice is to achieve economic development without having to patronise any of the two systems. It is to break away from ‘golden strait jacket’ and tailor it according to the stages of Timor Leste’s development.
After all that has been said and done, I think, for now, the
middle-way is working effectively for Timor Leste’s development. The state’s capitalist
character is needed at this time to create conditions for local industries to produce consumer goods by which the money will be spent locally, rather than always being dependent on imported goods. The social democrat character of social objectives ensures that there is equal
wealth distribution and no single Timorese is left behind in this whole development
process. Why mind capitalist and communist idealism when there is a middle-way?
