One hears so much about the 'imperfect' state of democracy in the Indonesian archipelago, during this election period. Perhaps it is time to hear - from the view of a visiting 'European' - what's right about it.

The point of democracy is to provide for the rotation of leadership through clean elections; to achieve the least imperfect legislation for the greater good of all (without punishment for those who lose); and through the least imperfect institutions possible, the sustaining of civil order within which the human spirit can flourish.

Let us also consider what democracy probably does not involve or require. As one who has spent a long career studying developing countries, including their attempts to implant democratic institutions, I have read much nonsense about what the absolute standards are for successful democracy. These include various but usually high thresholds of economic and educational attainment.

It is true that the longest success stories of democracy worldwide are in Western industrial (and rich) societies. They were not always rich. The yeomen of Jeffersonian fame, in the 19th century, were poor and not very well educated farmers.

True, there was a seemingly limitless land frontier and that helped; small wonder the 'people of plenty' democratic thesis developed in more recent times.

Trend of consolidation

But consider India - and indeed its recent elections. For over 50 years since independence democracy has flourished. Recent events are nothing less than astonishing. Within a day of voting the stunning results were in, the powerful and economically successful government was turned out and had gracefully conceded. Within days the prime minister-designate had turned down the honour.

'What are we in this for?'- the sarcastic monetary refrain of a Filipino politician in 1950, on the discovery that billions had disappeared in politicians' pockets - was not present in spirit that day in Delhi.

True, the emergence of Korea and Taiwan as the two most stable democracies of East and Southeast Asia gives credence to the notion that democracy is best built on strong economic foundations.

But their experience hardly proves the point. No one is disagreeing that it is easier to build democracy amidst strong economic growth. But the evidence is very powerful that democracy is the best guarantor of further economic growth.

This is not to say that a strong authoritarian leadership cannot deliver economic growth - witness Suharto. But a huge and painful chunk of that expansion was lost in the 1998-2000 crisis - and would not have been, in the presence of adequate democratic institutions.

The only major country of the region that did not spill its guts in the crisis was the then most democratic one -Ramos's Philippines. Over time, democracy correlates with economic success.

As far as educational institutions are concerned, there has never been solid evidence that uneducated people can't figure out where their interests lie. At early stages of democratic development, this may take the form of ethnic or group voting, through a clan leader or through mass vote buying. But as economic and political interests become more plural, people's votes follow in like manner.

Now for Indonesia. The parliamentary elections last month were hard fought and had among the most complicated electoral instructions ever seen. But no one has complained that the results fail to show preference and the results of good organisation.

In fact, though democratic theory usually doesn't place emphasis on party building (and the American founders were supremely suspicious of 'faction'), what looks to this observer as the best evidence of democratic maturisation in Indonesia is the extent to which real interests are being filtered through and into party organisation .

Golkar has extraordinarily and skillfully converted Suharto's authoritarian state-serving machine into a well-rooted and geographically dispersed true party. The Islamic Union stands behind and advises on Muslim interests, affecting party. There are lots of parties, but there is a tendency toward consolidation, toward shakeout.

It is not fanciful to see Indonesia moving toward a three or four-party nation, with shifting coalitions as interests and events evolve. This would be not unlike the French model, which despite interruptions as in 1958 has not done badly since the war at accommodating and dealing with the powerful forces within the republic.

Clean polls

Indonesia is said to be one of the most corrupt countries, and everyone has his own evidence thereof. But oddly enough, these elections seem to be relatively clean by anybody's standards. Recent allegations of vote-buying mentioned sums - US$7,000 - that are almost puny by comparison with data one could haul from neighboring states and from the industrial democracies in times past.

As a college student in the 1960s I had personal knowledge of bags of cash going in to Illinois to ensure the election of John F. Kennedy. There are, alas, plenty of corroborative and additional stories since.

Money flows during election times - elections breathe with money. Politicians suddenly build roads for their constituents as well they should. Young men are hired to demonstrate, but that wouldn't have much effect if the party in whose name they shout slogans do not have resonance separate from the payroll.

No one can explain in financial terms the phenomenon of Susilo Bambang Yudoyono's dominating emergence. No one has accused Wiranto of corruption. And the electoral watchdogs have not hesitated to blow the whistle - including at the ruling government, when it has allegedly used the instruments of state power for its own political advantage. Megawati Sukarnoputri deserves credit for that.

Can these elections improve governance and stability - to go back to our second and third functions of democracy? Time will tell, but the elections so far augur well.

We read much about the TNI's (military's) continued large role in the polity, its independent economic base and its powerful reach. But compare it with a decade ago!

And one suspects that the two generals running for high office have done well in accordance with the perception that while knowing how to effect and sustain stability, they will not be at the beck and call of the men in blue.

It simply isn't realistic to expect the TNI instantly to fade from a political scene it long dominated, especially while there remain strong regional and domestic threats to civil order. But precisely as elections show a popular will and a nation-wide majority and purpose, my guess is that the military will continue to blend in to the background, as the guarantor of order they are expected to be in all countries.

My own bet is that democracy in Indonesia may be on a roll.

W SCOTT THOMPSON, an adjunct professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Boston, is a former assistant secretary of state for the Ronald Reagan administration. He also served as Donald Rumsfeld's assistant at the Pentagon in 1975-76. He lives in Bali and Washington DC.