Good spokesperson, not information minister<\/p>\n
Alpha Amirrachman, Jakarta<\/p>\n
In his article, Information minister vital for Susilo's
\nsuccess (The Jakarta Post, Oct. 11, 2004), Muhammad Qodari argued
\nthat Megawati Soekarnoputri had failed to make use of the
\n\"strategic\" information ministry. The appointment of Syamsul
\nMu'arif of the rival Golkar Party, not a cadre from her own
\nparty, as the information minister was also regarded as a
\nblunder.<\/p>\n
Qodari underlined the failure of Megawati to learn from the
\nformer president Soeharto who effectively used the information
\nministry to mobilize support although he was elected by the
\nlargely appointed members of the MPR (People's Consultative
\nAssembly), not by the people.<\/p>\n
Harmoko, the then-information minister and a Soeharto loyalist
\nwas regarded as an effective minister who successfully
\ntransmitted the message of the government's successes to the
\npeople, although Qodari admitted that Harmoko \"was more a
\nminister of propaganda than a communication minister.\"<\/p>\n
Qodari said that we did not need such a powerful information
\nministry, yet he argued that the president-elect Susilo Bambang
\nYudhoyono should re-empower the information ministry by giving
\nthe ministry \"wider authority and bigger budget than it had under
\nMegawati.\"<\/p>\n
I would argue that we do not need a strong information
\nministry and that Qodari's arguments are clearly disturbing.<\/p>\n
First, linking the present socio-political situation to that
\nunder the Soeharto era is irrelevant. Under Soeharto, Indonesia
\nwas relatively stable not only because of his ability to control
\ninformation, but also because of his massive economic
\nachievements.<\/p>\n
On one hand, the stability was also further shaped by his
\nauthoritarian rule where civil liberties were curtailed and the
\nmass media was heavily controlled. This combination of economic
\nachievements and authoritarianism appeared to have brought
\nstability to the country.<\/p>\n
However, after being hit by the 1997 crisis, people realized
\nthat something was wrong with the way the country was governed.
\nIt was unfortunate that the heavily controlled media appeared to
\nhave slowed people's awareness of the wrongdoings of the
\nSoeharto-supported elite. If the media had been critical, the
\ncountry would have taken earlier steps to overcome the crisis.<\/p>\n
The post-Soeharto era marked the boom of the independent
\nmedia, not only at a national but also at a local level. Media,
\nsuch as television, has penetrated households even at the lowest
\nlevel of society; the family. As a result, people have become
\nmore openly critical towards governments' policies.<\/p>\n
People seemed to rely more on independent media, rather than
\non the state-controlled media.<\/p>\n
Arguably, Megawati's defeat in the election was not
\nsignificantly caused by her appointment of Syamsul Mu'arif as a
\ncommunication and information minister and her failure to
\neffectively make use of this ministry, but more by her own
\nfailure to intelligently make use of the independent media to
\narticulate her message.<\/p>\n
Her taciturn style and obvious impatience during tough
\ninterview sessions seems to have cost her reelection bid. Above
\nall, she simply failed to convey the message of her government's
\nmacroeconomic achievements to people.<\/p>\n
Second, fully re-empowering the information ministry -- if it
\nmeans reestablishing its apparatus down to the district and city
\nlevel -- would be a massive financial burden on the government.<\/p>\n
Third, reestablishing the ministry of information could be a
\nstarting point of a rollback of the hard-won civil liberties
\nduring this transitional period. As \"power tends to corrupt\",
\nSusilo's government could fall into the trap of gradually
\ncontrolling the independent media, which is dangerous to our
\nyoung democracy. In any democracy, press freedom is a must to
\nensure a multitude of views are aired and that no party dominates
\nor abuses the media.<\/p>\n
Therefore, having an increasingly powerful information
\nministry in Indonesia as a newly emerging democracy could be
\ndetrimental.<\/p>\n
Fourth, as the reestablishment and re-empowerment of
\ninformation ministry may well be unpopular, this could backfire
\nagainst Susilo, especially if the minister of information, as
\nQodari suggested, should be picked from Susilo's inner circle or
\nhis own political party -- the Democratic Party.<\/p>\n
This could be a blunder and could politically cost Susilo and
\nhis new fledging political party, especially since during the
\ncampaign period Susilo had consistently declared his support for
\npress freedom. It is therefore important that Susilo keep his
\npromise to defend press freedom.<\/p>\n
Fifth, the \"how\" rather than the \"what\" is more vital in
\nregards with \"information management.\" In this case, how
\ninformation is managed, articulated, and transmitted is more
\nimportant than the reestablishment of ministry of information. In
\nfact, Susilo is far more eloquent a leader compared with Soeharto
\nor Megawati.<\/p>\n
Susilo is well-known for his skills in dealing with the
\nindependent media, proven during his time as a minister under the
\nprevious government. Susilo has demonstrated his impressive
\nability to tackle intricate questions not only from journalists,
\nbut also from the panel of experts during the presidential
\ncampaign period. He therefore does not need a ministry of
\ninformation to act as a formal \"public relations agent\" as Qodari
\nsuggested.<\/p>\n
Susilo as a president may not need to talk to the press as
\nmuch anymore, but to help his job more effectively, he should
\nhave a professional \"presidential spokesperson\" to articulate his
\nmessage and views to the people. The presidential spokesperson
\ncould have a public relations team to ensure that messages about
\nall the government's achievements are being articulated through
\nthe independent media.<\/p>\n
Susilo's success and Megawati's failure in the presidential
\nelections show how leaders have to be shrewdly articulate in
\ndealing with the independent media. How to turn the independent
\nmedia either to their own advantage or disadvantage entirely
\ndepends on the skills and knowledge of the leader and their
\npublic relations team.<\/p>\n
The writer is a lecturer at the Prof Dr Hamka Muhammadiyah
\nUniversity and a deputy director of the Public Sphere Institute.
\nThis opinion is personal one. He can be reached at
\na.amirrachman@edfac.usyd.edu.au<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/good-spokesperson-not-information-minister-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}