How do we define political reform?<\/p>\n
By Mochtar Buchori<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): The word reform has become very popular these
\ndays, to the extent of becoming a household word.<\/p>\n
Initially, this phenomenon made me feel optimistic. I thought
\nthat the thinking class in our society sincerely wants reform. If
\nthat is the case, then there should be no problem whatsoever for
\nour nation to introduce political and economic reforms.<\/p>\n
But this sense of optimism vanished immediately after I read
\nan explanation about how the Armed Forces (ABRI) is going to
\ncarry out its reform, and what its notion is regarding \"political
\nreform\".<\/p>\n
The April 3 edition of Kompas daily carried a small report on
\nit. According to the chief of the Armed Forces' Sociopolitical
\nAffairs, Lt. Gen. Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, \"the political
\nattitude and view of ABRI regarding reform is that it should be
\ncarried out in a constitutional, conceptual, and gradual manner,
\nit should be aimed at the right target, and carried out according
\nto the priority of urgencies. ABRI is also of the opinion that
\nreform has already been carried out in the process of nation
\nbuilding.<\/p>\n
\"The mechanism of reform is already prearranged in our
\npolitical system. There is mechanism at the DPR\/MPR level, there
\nis also a set of established processes of implementing
\ndevelopment programs, and there are proposals about political
\nlife, programs to increase political communication and programs
\nto increase the quality of the general election. All those things
\nconstitute the mechanism of reform, and they are constitutional.\"<\/p>\n
At this point, I lost my appetite to read any further. It
\nbecame very clear to me that if this is the way the Armed Forces
\nlooks at and thinks of reform, then the gap between ABRI's notion
\nand that of the demonstrating students and the academics
\nregarding reform is as wide as ever, and is still unbridgeable. I
\ndo not see any common element between the two positions that can
\nbe used as a point of departure for formulating a reconciliatory
\nposition for the two sides.<\/p>\n
If I am not mistaken, all the things that were mentioned by
\nYudhoyono as the \"mechanism of reform\" would be considered by the
\nstudents and the academics precisely as the impediments of
\nreform.<\/p>\n
In my view, it is precisely the things the general mentioned
\nin his explanation to the press that have made our political life
\ndeteriorate.<\/p>\n
If the general elections that have been conducted after 1972
\nare considered to be \"gradually qualitatively better\", then it is
\nreally a tragedy. Is ABRI really serious in maintaining that the
\ngeneral election of 1997 was qualitatively better than that of
\n1992 and the preceding ones?<\/p>\n
It is also self-deceptive, in my opinion, to think that our
\npolitical system has become qualitatively better. What is the
\ncriterion? In my view, the way the government removed H. Jaelani
\n(John) Naro from his throne as boss of the United Development
\nParty was much gentler than the way the government marginalized
\nthe Indonesian Democratic Party's Megawati Soekarnoputri from the
\nformal political system and make her existence as a political
\nleader illicit.<\/p>\n
Again, if we are really honest in viewing our political
\ncondition, it would be utterly impossible to assert that we have
\nmade significant progress in our political life. To me, political
\nprogress is indicated by the presence of greater respect for the
\npeople's sensibilities, by greater transparency in conducting
\npublic affairs, and significant reduction in the use of violent
\nmethods in bringing about public order. Do we have these
\nindicators in our current political life?<\/p>\n
I agree that during these years regulations have been
\nconstantly made concerning our political system. I also have no
\nobjection if ABRI wants to call these regulations \"reforms\". But
\nthis kind of reform is different, I think, than the reforms that
\nthe students and the academics have in mind.<\/p>\n
Those reforms, conducted by the government since 1973, are
\n\"retrogressive reforms\", that is, reforms that have taken us to a
\nbackward, more inferior or more primitive condition. Whereas the
\nreforms the demonstrating students and the academics have in mind
\nare, in my reading, \"progressive reforms\", that is, reforms that
\nwill take us to a condition better, more democratic, and more
\nhumane, than the one in which we live.<\/p>\n
We can learn much in this case from the Chilean experience.
\nThe political reforms that were carried out during the Unidad
\nPopular Government (1970 to 1973) under President Salvador
\nAllende, and during the 17 years of military rule (1973 to 1990)
\nunder Gen. Augusto Pinochet Ugarte were retrogressive reforms
\nthat caused a breakdown in the existing democratic system which
\nwas then still weak and embryonic, and ultimately brought the
\ncountry into the status of an \"authoritarian\" state.<\/p>\n
But the institutional reforms that were introduced during the
\nadministration of President Patricio Alwyn were progressive
\nreforms that did not only rehabilitate, but also strengthened the
\nChilean democracy.<\/p>\n
Since 1994, Chile has enjoyed the status of a \"true
\ndemocratic\" country, the second-highest in a hierarchy of eight
\ncategories of democracy.<\/p>\n
Let us, in this connection, thus be aware of the pitfalls of
\nreforms. Let us remember that throughout the history of humankind
\nthe idea of reform has always created controversies.<\/p>\n
John Stuart Mill wrote in 1859: \"The spirit of improvement is
\nnot always a spirit of liberty, for it may aim at forcing
\nimprovements on an unwilling people.\"<\/p>\n
And a more contemporary writer, Irving Howe (1920-1993), wrote
\nin his A Critic's Notebook (published in 1994): \"One great flaw
\nin the reforming passion is that in its eagerness to remedy
\nsocial wrongs it tends to neglect, certainly to undervalue, the
\nexperiences of those whose lives it wishes to improve.\"<\/p>\n
This wisdom should prompt us to check constantly whether our
\nagenda of reform really corresponds with the needs of the people.
\nThe Armed Forces, the students and the community of students and
\nacademics should ask themselves the following question: \"What is
\nmy agenda of reform? Will it really improve the lives of the
\npeople whom we are supposed to serve?\"<\/p>\n
If each of us is willing to look honestly into ourselves and
\nanswer this question equally honestly for ourselves, I think we
\nwill then be able to avert a clash between two concepts of reform
\nwhich, at the moment, seem to be at loggerheads.<\/p>\n
The writer is an observer of social and cultural affairs.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/how-do-we-define-political-reform-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }