Dialog vital among political groupings<\/p>\n
The burgeoning of political parties in this post-Soeharto era
\nis just one of many indications of people's restlessness in
\ncoping with change. B.S. Mardiatmadja, a lecturer at Driyarkara
\nSchool of Philosophy, strives to find the reason for this
\nrestlessness.<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): There are many currents in our society: Some
\nmoving toward union and others toward fragmentation.<\/p>\n
Some political groups in the country are striving for unity,
\nexpressed through initiatives for interreligious dialogs and in
\nproposals for reconciliation. On the other hand, there is a
\ndistant cry for decentralization and even a growing political and
\nreligious pluralism due to the creation and diffusion of new
\nparties and denominations at the regional and national levels.<\/p>\n
For people on the streets, this situation is far from
\npeaceful. Some call for leaders of different parties to debate
\nthrough the media. To make such a debate fruitful, there should
\nbe a common ground established.<\/p>\n
Current nationalistic and spiritual movements are expressing a
\nneed to return to fundamentals -- both in the context of religion
\nand politics.<\/p>\n
Not only have these new groups energetically called for the
\npreservation of certain nationalistic and religious ideas
\ninherent in the country's culture, but they have also highlighted
\nmany of the political implications stemming from certain myths
\nabout our societal legacy.<\/p>\n
This trend, however, has also brought about many new ideas
\nwhich have prompted groups to break away from established
\ninstitutions or doctrine in the community -- some to emerge as a
\nradical alternative to the dominant group and culture in a
\nspecific area.<\/p>\n
The result is an increasing fragmentation in society, which is
\nhappening in nearly all aspects of life, especially in political
\nlife. Some are now questioning the legitimacy and even morality
\nof certain policies, judicial decisions and political incidents,
\nincluding the March 11 handover of power from Sukarno to
\nSoeharto.<\/p>\n
The trend has been attributed to various causes, whether
\nhistorical, social-cultural, economic and political, while some
\nhave concluded it is due to the reform movement.<\/p>\n
One explanation for the trend, however, seems to ring more
\ntrue than others: a thirst for the sacred. There is a current
\nexplosion of people searching for the spiritual, even in the most
\nsecularized of groups.<\/p>\n
While on the one hand many people seem to be fervently
\npursuing material needs in a quest to fulfill materialistic
\ndesires, on the other, we are witnessing a desperate search for
\nmeaning, the need for an inner life and a desire to learn new
\nforms and methods of meditation and prayer.<\/p>\n
This is happening not only in subcultures with strong
\nreligious beliefs, but also in secularized subcultures, where the
\nspiritual dimension of life is being sought after as an antidote
\nto dehumanization.<\/p>\n
Facing a growing plurality of paths opening up in economic,
\npolitical and religious quests, some exalt pluralism as the
\nhighest value that expresses the creativity and freedom of man --
\nthe new savior of our society. Many others, on the contrary,
\naspire to justify pluralism by finding an element of unity among
\nall paths. Different ways of encountering other groups which are
\nbased on different models of unity derive from this aspiration.<\/p>\n
Nationalistic movements to unify the country could take on the
\nform of several models. One model stems from the concept that an
\nessential unity is developed through an all-pervasive primordial
\nnationalism. The existence of nationalism -- acknowledged but
\nveiled and whose nucleus of truths is only contained in and
\nrevealed by esoteric nationalistic doctrines -- is taken for
\ngranted.<\/p>\n
Groups in the model are allowed to express their nationalistic
\ndoctrines through their own political traditions in order to
\nreturn to their roots. Relations among different groups are
\nembedded with a sense of mission to purify themselves and thus
\nunite in what is essential and transcends them.<\/p>\n
A second model could be expressed through political groups
\nresponding to the challenge of nationalistic pluralism by
\npresenting themselves as a vehicle superseding the cacophony of
\nnationalistic expressions in society. The interdenominational
\ninitiatives promoted by these movements are inspired by a mission
\nof attaining unity.<\/p>\n
One way that we may see this is how one party could claim to
\nassist people wishing to examine the diversities and divisions
\nwithin groups and facilitate reconciliations within political
\ngroupings.<\/p>\n
A third but similar model would be the possibility of a new
\nparty that transcends all existing parties. Such a party would
\nunite the country by pointing to the crisis as a need for people
\nto transcend economic, religious, cultural and tribal boundaries
\nto solve the nation's problems.<\/p>\n
Overall, the basis and model for interparty dialog is the
\nunity of the Indonesian people forged through a national
\nconsciousness and similar ideals. It is not a question of uniting
\nor unifying parties, but of reconciling people in the common
\nawareness that they belong to a single Indonesian family.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/dialog-vital-among-political-groupings-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}