JP\/17\/PALACE<\/p>\n
Revitalization of palaces a threat to democracy<\/p>\n
Sri Wahyuni
\nContributor\/Yogyakarta<\/p>\n
A dialog on culture held recently during the Indonesia
\nPalaces Festival (FKN) IV in Yogyakarta agreed on the need to
\nmake the palaces in the country the centers of culture.<\/p>\n
Author of Bangsawan dan Kuasa (Noble Families and Power), AAGN
\nAri Dwipayana, of Gadjah Mada University school of political and
\nsocial sciences, however, said that it could be a setback and a
\nthreat to democracy. The following is an excerpt of the interview
\nwith Sri Wahyuni of The Jakarta Post' about the issue.<\/p>\n
How would you perceive a palace in today's politics of the
\ncountry?<\/p>\n
The formal political power of a palace in Indonesia came to an
\nend since the enactment of Law No. 1\/1957 on regional government,
\nwhich erased the existence of swapraja (autonomous)
\ngovernment, i.e. palaces, such that they have functioned only in
\nthe cultural domain ever since.<\/p>\n
When a major, fundamental change in Indonesian politics
\noccurred in 1998, however, many of the palaces were starting to
\nlook for new strategies (to regain their formal political power).<\/p>\n
Individually, for example, members of the royal families are
\nseeking formal positions in either the legislative institutions
\nor the bureaucracy.<\/p>\n
Institutionally, they are expanding their wilayah kerabat
\n(reach) by, for instance, awarding noble titles to the country's
\nprominent political figures.<\/p>\n
In other words, they are revitalizing themselves, looking for
\nboth political representation and institutionally strategic
\npositions in local politics.<\/p>\n
In Yogyakarta, for example, an effort has also been made
\nthrough the strengthening of the special status of the region. In
\nSurakarta, Ternate, and Tidore, a similar approach has been made
\nthrough the idea of going back to the residency form of
\ngovernment.<\/p>\n
In other places, it is done through the degree of
\nrepresentativeness of a sultanate in local politics. This is
\nindeed a setback for democracy.<\/p>\n
Could you elaborate?<\/p>\n
Democracy recognizes equality. No representation is made based
\neither on historical, gynecological, or traditional
\nconsiderations. Everyone is treated equally.<\/p>\n
The involvement of a palace in modern politics, too, can
\ncreate congruence between the cultural and formal political
\npowers that will in turn make the powers too centralistic to
\ncontrol.<\/p>\n
A sultan who is also a governor, for example, is difficult to
\ncontrol because he is also the representation of culture. As
\nsuch, his authority is often seen as sacred, exemplary and even a
\nmanifestation of particular traditional or supernatural power.<\/p>\n
When equality is no longer recognized, while at the same time
\nthere is also a concentration of political and cultural powers,
\nit will be difficult for the substantive democracy to be
\nachieved.<\/p>\n
That is why it is important that palaces must not consider
\nthemselves the centers of culture, the centers of models. Culture
\nand tradition do not belong only to palaces. There are many
\nothers that live in the community. Palaces are just parts of a
\nmultifaceted culture.<\/p>\n
What I am saying is that there is a phenomenon of
\nmonopolization in the authority to interpret so-called culture,
\nwhich is often referred to as the identity of a region.<\/p>\n
When people talk about customs and traditions they always
\nrefer to that of palaces, and not that which was developed among
\nethnical, more egalitarian communities, where equality was highly
\nrecognized.<\/p>\n
In other words, there has been an \"aristocratization\" of
\nculture and custom. This should be stopped because it is not
\nconducive at all for the process of democracy. Unfortunately, as
\nI see it, people seem to have accepted this phenomenon as
\nsomething natural.<\/p>\n
Even among academics the same acceptance often exists.
\nAristocracy seems to have been perceived as a solution for
\ndemocracy that many consider to have failed in providing a better
\nlife for the community.<\/p>\n
What do you think will stop it?<\/p>\n
Civil society organizations should not just accept the idea
\nthat going back to traditional values is the same as going back
\nto that of the palaces. Movements like the Alliance of Nusantara
\nCommunity (Aman) have to speak out loud that strengthening
\ntraditional customs does not equate with a revival of feudalism
\nor aristocracy.<\/p>\n
The government, similarly, should not facilitate only the
\nforums for the palaces to expose themselves but also those for
\nthe other groups of community to show the varied traditions
\nliving among them. Both the palaces and the rest of the community
\nmust be given the same opportunity to develop their traditions
\nand culture as tourist attractions.<\/p>\n
The democratic rule of the games should be developed as well
\nso as not to create possibilities for a hegemony or domination
\nfrom the palace actors in the local politics.<\/p>\n
At a national level, related policies have to be formulated
\nunder clear cultural politics. It should be clearly stated that
\nthe culture to be developed is one that will not tolerate
\naristocracy or feudalism.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/jp17palace-1447899208",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}