Home, foreign affairs: A cultural link?<\/p>\n
By Ignas Kleden<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): Indonesian Foreign Affairs Minister Ali Alatas
\nis perhaps one of the few who has the courage for self-criticism.
\nAccording to his observation, most Indonesian diplomats lack
\nprofessional qualifications in dealing with the people of other
\ncountries. One of their shortcomings, he cited, is their poor
\nability to debate.<\/p>\n
Alatas's comment brought about a response from senior diplomat
\nAnak Agung Gede Agung, who pointed out that the shortcoming was
\ndue mainly to their poor mastery of diplomatic languages
\n(especially English), and their inability to interact socially or
\npolitically in the countries where they reside.<\/p>\n
This article does not aim to look into the professional
\neducation of our diplomats, but rather to call our attention to
\nanother aspect implied in Alatas's statement. The question is
\nwhether the inability to engage professionally in a diplomatic
\ndebate should be attributed to diplomatic training and their
\ntechnical proficiency in English or to the larger political
\nculture and political behavior now prevalent in Indonesian
\npolitics?<\/p>\n
For one thing, we can safely contend that the ability to
\ndebate is not simply a matter of technical training, but rather
\nof cultural habit. If one is not used to debating, we cannot
\nexpect that suddenly because of one's job one is able to debate
\nprofessionally.<\/p>\n
The fact that one is used to or not used to debate is due to
\nboth psychological disposition and cultural circumstances. In the
\nformer case one is not familiar with debate because fighting
\nforcefully for one's opinion is something which is not in line
\nwith one's personal preference or psychological inclinations. In
\nthe latter, however, one is not familiar with debate, because
\nthis is something not recommended or even not allowed by one's
\ncultural values and norms.<\/p>\n
Theoretically speaking, there are cultures in which debate and
\ncompetition of ideas are highly esteemed because it becomes an
\nopportunity to exercise one's ability to think logically, to
\nreact quickly and speak eloquently and intelligently. In other
\nwords, it is seen and treated as an intellectual exercise or
\npublic performance.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, there are also cultural groups who do not
\nlike debate and prefer actions to words. From the former group we
\nlearn that to work is one thing, but to stand up and to speak up
\nfor one's work and achievement is another.<\/p>\n
Politics as such is a job which, by definition, cannot be
\nseparated from talking. This is the case because politics has
\nsomething to do with public life. To talk is also a necessity in
\npolitical life because accountability becomes an inherent
\nelement, whereby everything pertaining to the public good should
\nbe contested publicly. Politicians are expected to speak clearly,
\nto convey the message convincingly and argue intelligently.<\/p>\n
In foreign affairs, all the above capacities are more
\nimportant because the job of our diplomats abroad consists of two
\nrelated tasks. On the one hand they have to introduce and promote
\nIndonesian politics, while on the other hand they have to be able
\nto argue against all misunderstanding and criticisms of
\nIndonesian politics.<\/p>\n
All this has to be done in foreign circumstances, in front of
\na foreign audience, using a foreign language, and confronting
\nforeign way of thinking and foreign political outlook. Technical
\ncapacities are very much dependent upon the professional and
\ndiplomatic training provided by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
\nSocial abilities are mostly attributed to the individual and
\npersonal talents of our diplomats.<\/p>\n
The question of political opposition still seems to be a very
\nsensitive issue. It is believed to contradict the political
\nculture of Indonesia, which is derived from national culture and
\nkepribadian bangsa, or national personality.<\/p>\n
Historically speaking, this view originated in the Old Order
\nregime during the reign of President Sukarno and gained a new
\nrelevance at the beginning of the New Order in mid-1960s when
\npolitical stability was so important for the implementation and
\nthe continuation of economic development. Now that economic
\ndevelopment is already well settled, it is time to rethink the
\npossibility of political opposition within the context of
\nIndonesian culture.<\/p>\n
The necessity of political opposition poses a double
\nchallenge. Domestically, the capacity for consensus building will
\nnot be adequate if it is not supported by the equally important
\ncapacity for conflict management. If we may assume (which is
\nstill very debatable) that political opposition is something
\nalien in Indonesian culture, we can say that conflict is always
\npresent.<\/p>\n
Poverty, for example, can engender conflict because the
\nscarcity of resources may lead to the struggle for survival.
\nConversely, wealth may produce conflict because national income
\nis not yet distributed fairly.<\/p>\n
In a way, political opposition is only a formalization of
\nconflict, be it political, economic, social or cultural in
\nnature. All should have a political opportunity to speak up and
\nsearch for politically acceptable solutions.<\/p>\n
Conflicts cannot be continuously repressed without becoming
\ndetrimental to social integration. Conflicts are there to be
\nsolved, and they can only be solved if they are discernible and
\nallowed to appear.<\/p>\n
The traditional view which looks at conflict as something
\ndeviant or inappropriate should be replaced by another view which
\ntreats conflict as something very human and something which
\nbelongs to the process of self-realization. To ignore conflicts
\nwill not result in their disappearance, and to repress them time
\nand again will weaken the base of social integration.<\/p>\n
Internationally, the question of opposition gains a new
\nrelevance if it is related to the qualifications of our diplomats
\nabroad. The weakness pointed out by Minister Alatas can be
\ndiscussed in this connection. Debate is the exchange of arguments
\nbacked up by supporting ideas formulated in comprehensible
\npropositions.<\/p>\n
To this extent the ability for debate is a product of a
\npolitical climate where opposing political positions are allowed
\nand where differences of opinion are respected as an expression
\nof intellectual autonomy and political intelligence.<\/p>\n
This is only possible if politics is prevented from being
\npersonalized, whereby the political position one chooses is
\ntreated as identical to one's personality.<\/p>\n
We can never overemphasize that politics is a public sphere.
\nOf course we can privately tell our friends or acquaintances in
\npower of their wrongdoings, but this is by no means a political
\nact. It becomes a political act if this reminder or warning is
\ndone publicly in order to further public learning, political
\neducation and political control.<\/p>\n
The quality of political leadership is much more than mere
\nindividual or personal qualities. We can hope but we must not
\nassume and expect that the moral qualification of a political
\nleader is much better than that of the common citizens. This is
\nnot a necessary prerequisite. The quality of political leadership
\nis not personal virtue but the product of the political
\nintervention of one's constituents as well as the result of
\nsocial control.<\/p>\n
The philosophical assumption of democracy is certainly not the
\nmoral superiority of political leaders but precisely the
\ncorrigibility of human fallibility through control. People get
\nthe government they deserve and citizens get the leadership they
\nmake themselves.<\/p>\n
To come back to the issue of Indonesian diplomats abroad, we
\ncannot expect our diplomats to suddenly behave totally
\ndifferently from their daily habits in domestic political
\naffairs. If political opposition is not allowed, and if political
\ncriticism is seen as something unnecessary, there will be very
\nlittle opportunity for our politicians to train their
\nargumentative skills.<\/p>\n
We are often told officially that Indonesian foreign politics
\nreflects and should reflect Indonesian internal politics. In the
\nsame vein, political performance in international fora reflects
\n(though it should not) the political culture at home.<\/p>\n
The writer is a sociologist working with the Jakarta-based
\nSPES Foundation Research Center.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/home-foreign-affairs-a-cultural-link-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}