Ministerial speeches: A political imperative?<\/p>\n
By Mochtar Buchori<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): One of the senior Moslem ulemas or kyais
\nattending the recent congress of the Nahdlatul Ulama complained
\nthat too much time was spent for ministerial speeches in the
\ncongress. He felt that because of these speeches not enough time
\nwas left for thorough discussions of issues that had beset the
\norganization. It would be much better, in his opinion, if the
\nallotment of time for ministerial speeches be reduced and the one
\nfor discussing substantive issues increased.<\/p>\n
In my opinion this is a very valid complaint which should have
\nbeen voiced much earlier. Throughout these recent years
\nministerial speeches have always dominated every type of national
\ncongress: congress of professional organizations, congress of
\nsocial organizations, and congress of political organizations.<\/p>\n
The usual justification given to this practice is that by
\ninviting these various ministers, directives will be obtained
\nconcerning the way each organization should behave during the
\nyears to come to generate a good working relationship with the
\ngovernment. And the bigger the number of ministers attending an
\nevent, the more lucid the pattern of behavior will become that
\nthe organization holding the congress should pursue during the
\nnext period of its existence.<\/p>\n
What actually happens to these speeches after they are
\ndelivered? Are they really used as references in the discussions
\nduring the entire congress?<\/p>\n
If I am not mistaken, these addresses have been used primarily
\nas a means to support an argument. If during a discussion a
\ndebate does occur, then the person who is able to mobilize
\nquotations from these ministerial speeches to reinforce his or
\nher argument will win. The logic here is as follows: If you can
\nback up your argument with quotations from, say, three ministers,
\nwho will have the political courage to disagree with you? In this
\ncase, disagreement or counter argument means opposing an official
\nline of reasoning. That is disloyalty! Or worse: opposition!<\/p>\n
If you want to counter an argument reinforced with quotations
\nfrom ministerial speeches, and still survive, you have to use the
\nsame trick: use other quotations from other ministerial speeches.
\nIn this way, you are safely covered. And what is being displayed
\nis actually not a discourse between two opposing persons from the
\nfloor, but a clash between or among different parts of the
\nexecutive branch.<\/p>\n
Is it really possible to employ these tactics? Of course it
\nis! Just look at the on-going controversy about tariff and
\nprotection.<\/p>\n
But the real question is, of course, whether it will be
\npossible to find real solutions to the problems faced by the
\norganization by resorting to this kind of discourse.<\/p>\n
Personally I do not think that playing this game, fascinating
\nthough it may be, will enhance anyone's capacity to solve any
\nproblem besetting any organization in any satisfactory manner.
\nMinisterial speeches have been written in general not for the
\npurpose of guiding any organization to solve its problems.
\nRather, they have been written to remind the organization holding
\nthe national congress that there are official policies and
\nprograms that should be closely adhered to.<\/p>\n
This ritual of inviting cabinet ministers to deliver addresses
\nto every national congress has another negative effect upon our
\norganizational life. Within Indonesian society today the value of
\nany opinion aired to the public is in most cases determined by
\nthe position held in public life by the person giving the
\nopinion. Opinions expressed by cabinet ministers receive in most
\ncases more acknowledgment from the public than opinions expressed
\nby persons without any position within the government. Similarly,
\nopinions expressed by a deadpan professor are in general more
\nheeded than opinions expressed by a smart young scholar who is
\nnot a member yet of the learning establishment. And all this is
\nregardless of the relative merit of each opinion measured in
\nterms of its adherence to facts and logic.<\/p>\n
In cases where opinions held by government bureaucrats
\ncontrast sharply with opinions expressed by leaders of an
\norganization, this tradition can have a very damaging effect upon
\norganizational life. Discipline among members of the organization
\ncan be eroded, and loyalty to organization can be severely
\nundermined. Organizational conduct is no longer based on the
\ncollective wisdom formulated by members of the organization, but
\non whether or not leaders of the organization can accept the
\nopinions and demands of the government bureaucrats.<\/p>\n
I think this habit of inviting cabinet ministers to address
\nnational congresses will stop only after organizations within our
\nsociety have become able to find their own source of
\norganizational strength, when they learn to revive discipline and
\nloyalty among their members without inviting intervention from
\nthe government by firmly upholding their organizational values.<\/p>\n
The writer is rector of the IKIP-Muhammadiyah Teachers'
\nTraining Institute, Jakarta.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/ministerial-speeches-a-political-imperative-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}