Honest dialog needed to build common vision<\/p>\n
The year 1997 will soon come to an end. Political scientist J.
\nSoedjati Djiwandono reflects upon the year's events and upon what
\nis urgently needed for the future.<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): The whole world is anticipating the end of 1997
\nand the new year. But in this country, we have more reason than
\nmost to be anxious. In the words of Adam Schwartz, in this decade
\nof the 1990s, we have remained a \"nation in waiting\". And more
\nthan the rest of the world, this is, for us, the most painful
\npart of the wait.<\/p>\n
We are waiting for a change in the political scene. The same
\npolitical system has been in power for over three decades, a
\nrecord surpassed only by Cuba's President Fidel Castro. The
\npolitical system is not functioning fully and properly. There is
\na growing tendency toward a concentration of power in the hands
\nof the government's executive branch and by contrast, a
\ncontinuous weakening of the representative bodies' power -- one
\nof whose main functions is to exercise control over the executive
\nbranch.<\/p>\n
Indeed, one would wonder, especially in light of what has
\nalways appeared to be the executive branch's dominant role in the
\nPeople's Consultative Assembly's (MPR) steering committee,
\nwhether the President is really mandated by the MPR or the other
\nway around. Hence, the increasing tendency toward power abuse at
\nall levels, resulting in growing injustice in various forms.<\/p>\n
There are increasing demands for greater public participation,
\ngreater freedoms of expression and association, an effective
\nmechanism of control, judicial review, an antitrust or
\nantimonopoly law, and a presidential term limitation -- in other
\nwords, for greater democracy and justice.<\/p>\n
However, we can be sure of only one thing: there will be a
\nchange of national leadership. This is as sure as the sun rises
\nin the east, for nobody is immortal.<\/p>\n
Nevertheless, unless the present national leader should step
\ndown of his own will, which is highly improbable, the rest will
\nremain uncertain. No less uncertain is whether a change in
\nnational leadership would result in political reform.<\/p>\n
Beyond the widespread demands for change, however, there is,
\nas yet, to be a common understanding nationwide as to what is
\nmeant by political reform. In what direction and what aspects of
\nthe political system does reform need to take place. Such a
\ncommon understanding is absolutely necessary, particularly among
\nthe country's different religious communities, whose relations
\nhave continued to be marked by mutual prejudice, suspicion,
\ndistrust and misunderstanding.<\/p>\n
Social and political development in the past few years has
\nclearly demonstrated that Indonesian society has been torn and
\nbeset by sectarian interests, particularly in racial and
\nreligious terms.<\/p>\n
The need, therefore, would be for an open and honest dialog
\nbetween leaders and members of religious communities, to develop
\na common vision of a desirable society, toward which political
\nchange could be geared.<\/p>\n
This is of great significance and urgency, particularly among
\nyounger generations. It is to these generations that the future
\nbelongs. And it is today's young generation that will face the
\nchallenge of political reform.<\/p>\n
What kind of society do they want for the future? If it is to
\nbe a pluralistic society, then what kind of pluralism -- static
\nor dynamic? Is it to be one in which the majority should have
\nprivileges, or one with equality and justice for all, with free
\nmovement of information, ideas and people? Do they have a common
\nunderstanding of the Indonesian concept of nationhood, and thus,
\nof national unity with all its implications?<\/p>\n
What kind of democracy should be strived for? What about the
\nfuture role of the military? How would it understand human
\nrights? Above all, how would it understand the role of religion
\nin its future society, in a state based on the Pancasila ideology
\nas embodied in the 1945 Constitution, supposedly the primary
\nsource of the state's laws?<\/p>\n
Clearly, such dialog would need to take place over a long and
\narduous process and it would be fruitful only if marked by
\nopenness, honesty, humility, patience and goodwill on the part of
\nall those involved.<\/p>\n
Indeed, while not much can be done under the present
\ncircumstances, such a dialog that developed a common vision of
\nthe future -- of a post-sectarian society -- should be the mark
\nof our time, or else we may well be in for another deep political
\ncrisis. This would be costly, and perhaps delay indefinitely
\nmuch-needed reform.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/honest-dialog-needed-to-build-common-vision-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}