Finding balance between stability and change<\/p>\n
By Mochtar Buchori<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): The seven-page resolution in the ASEAN summit in
\nKuala Lumpur last month, called ASEAN Vision 2020, states that
\nASEAN is \"an outward-looking Association of Southeast Asian
\nNations, living in peace, stability and prosperity in a dynamic,
\ncaring community\".<\/p>\n
Since this is a goal for all of ASEAN, I think every member
\ncountry has the moral obligation to steer their respective
\nsocieties in this direction.<\/p>\n
While \"living in peace, stability and prosperity in a dynamic,
\ncaring community\" is a very lofty ideal, it must be acknowledged
\nthat this ideal contains elements that, within the framework of
\nour present style of governance, will be very hard to reconcile.<\/p>\n
Stability is a concept that emphasizes immutability and
\npermanence, and therefore resistant to change and displacement,
\nwhereas prosperity is a concept that presupposes continuous
\nchange within our present demographic and economic settings.<\/p>\n
No country, within or outside ASEAN, will be able to give real
\nprosperity to its people unless it is willing and capable to
\ncontinuously reevaluate itself and inject the right kind of
\nchange into society.<\/p>\n
This means that if this lofty ASEAN ideal is to materialize,
\nASEAN countries must design a model of stability that does not
\npreclude, prohibit or punish every kind of change. Certain kinds
\nof change must be allowed to happen.<\/p>\n
ASEAN countries must thus make a clear distinction between
\n\"static stability\" that will lead toward conservativeness, and
\n\"dynamic stability\" that will lead toward progressiveness. At the
\nsame time they must also make a distinction between \"destructive
\nchange\" that creates unmanageable chaos and \"constructive change\"
\nthat promises improvements in the future.<\/p>\n
Assuming the modernization process within Indonesia is to be
\ncontinued, we must remember that even modern countries modernize
\nthemselves. It will be very hard for our country to entirely
\navert destabilizing changes. This is because, as Samuel
\nHuntington pointed out, while modernity generates political
\nstability, the process of modernization itself breeds
\ninstability.<\/p>\n
The test of ingenuity that will be faced by our leaders is
\nwhether or not they have the ability to accurately calculate and
\nrecalculate the amount of instability that will be allowed to
\nhappen during any given period of time to enable society to
\nchange and move toward political stability.<\/p>\n
History shows us that no society has ever achieved genuine
\npolitical stability based on progress without experiencing some
\nform of instability beforehand and without the ability to recover
\nfrom temporary instability.<\/p>\n
The absence of such ability will engulf a society in chaotic
\ninstability forever.<\/p>\n
If we look at the way the problem of stability in our country
\nhas been approached and handled thus far, I seriously doubt that
\nwithin the near future we will be able to steer our society
\ntoward a genuinely peaceful, stable, prosperous, dynamic and
\ncaring community.<\/p>\n
Even if a play relating the story of the late labor activist
\nMarsinah is not allowed to be performed, then what we get is
\nneither stability nor a caring community, but political and
\ncultural suffocation.<\/p>\n
If an innocent person without a previous criminal record is
\nforced to admit to committing a murder just for the sake of
\ncreating the impression that the police had the capability of
\nmaintaining order and stability, then what we get is neither
\npeace nor stability, but a public sense that we are being ruled
\nin a ruthless and oppressive way.<\/p>\n
If this way of promoting stability remains unchanged, then as
\na nation we will never be able to generate cultural and social
\ndynamics that will eventually lead us toward significant social,
\npolitical and economic change. It is these changes that bring
\nabout phenomena like enlightened citizenship, a mature democracy,
\nand greater prosperity.<\/p>\n
A dynamic and caring community can never be reached through
\noppressive measures. Such a community can be reached only through
\npolitical leadership which fosters empathy and encourages mutual
\nhelp among people.<\/p>\n
A leadership which relies on force, intimidation and
\nmanipulative methods to hold the public in check will make the
\npublic lose faith in the ideal of a caring community.<\/p>\n
The presence of such leadership indicates that there is, in
\nreality, no real leader around. This is because, as Napoleon
\nBonaparte said, \"a leader is a dealer in hope\".<\/p>\n
Taking into account our present inclinations for maintaining
\norder and stability, I think that our nation still has a very
\nlong way to go before it is ready to embrace and actively seek a
\nculture of leadership that emphasizes empathy, trust and respect
\nfor public intelligence and sensibilities.<\/p>\n
Our present and next generations of political leaders will
\nhave to engage themselves in critical reflections about social
\ndynamics to be able to strike a healthy balance between measures
\nto maintain stability and devices to promote a dynamic and caring
\ncommunity.<\/p>\n
Failure to find such a balance will cause our country to be
\nlocked in pseudo-stability that in the long run will eat away the
\ncreative potential of the nation.<\/p>\n
As far as I know, there are two strategies that can be
\nfollowed to find this balance. One is by applying a model of
\nstability that will enable the public to carry out improvements
\nwithin their environment without resorting to destructive acts.<\/p>\n
This is possible only if there is mutual trust between the
\npublic and its leaders, and if the leaders continuously update
\ntheir understanding concerning the aspirations and feelings of
\nthe public.<\/p>\n
The second strategy is what is known as a \"pendulum strategy\".
\nIn this strategy a country moves back and forth between a policy
\nof rigid control to ensure stability and a policy which allows a
\ncertain degree of freedom to enable the public to express its
\nideas concerning change and improvement.<\/p>\n
This strategy can be implemented only if the rigid controls
\napplied during a given time period do not kill the will and the
\nvision of the public concerning a better future. Where are we now
\nin this journey toward a peaceful, stable, prosperous, dynamic
\nand caring society? How do we go from here?<\/p>\n
This is a grand question that can only be answered by grand
\nminds with a grand vision. And to paraphrase Jonathan Swift
\n(1667-1745), an English satirist, it is only those who can see
\nthings invisible that will have the ability to build a grand
\nvision.<\/p>\n
The writer is an observer of social and cultural affairs.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/finding-balance-between-stability-and-change-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }