Moral dilemma while country nears political crossroads<\/p>\n
By Mochtar Buchori<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): One evening while preparing for a trip, I was
\ncalled by a friend. He sounded very tense. \"Something very
\nimportant has happened. Minister Sarwono was just summoned by the
\nPresident and advised to keep his temper in check. You know what
\nthat means, don't you?\"<\/p>\n
I was aghast. For a moment I thought that we were in a deep
\npolitical crisis. Minister of Environment Sarwono Kusumaatmadja
\nmust have done something terrible for President Soeharto to
\nsummon him and give him advise. Within the Javanese cultural
\ncontext, \"to be advised by the President to keep your temper in
\ncheck\" means that you have trespassed a cardinal ethical norm.<\/p>\n
When I read Minister Sarwono's statement the next morning, I
\nrealized that I was mistaken. He looked very calm to me, and
\nseemed to regard the whole event as a very normal thing.<\/p>\n
It became clear that he was able to adopt that calm political
\nposture because he had put the entire affair within a democratic
\nperspective. If he were to respond to it in a feudal way, I am
\nsure he would have looked and behaved distressed. It seemed the
\nentire affair had no negative affect on him.<\/p>\n
As I remember it, he said something like this to the
\nreporters: \"I am grateful that I am reminded of my shortcoming.
\nAs a younger person I will of course heed that advise. Thus from
\nnow on, please do not trick me into making controversial
\nstatements.\"<\/p>\n
In my recollection, the episode went like this:<\/p>\n
One day, Minister Sarwono made a statement that had degraded
\nthe prestige and respect of the government. This was followed by
\na reaction from Soemarno Dipodisastro, an old friend of Minister
\nSarwono and chairman of the \"1966 Forum for Study and
\nCommunication\" (Fosko '66). Soemarno said that the minister had
\nan \"ambivalent attitude\".<\/p>\n
A similar criticism came from Yamin Awari, another old friend
\nof the minister, who is secretary-general of AMPI, a powerful
\nyouth organization. Awari even suggested that the minister
\nresign.<\/p>\n
Another member of the cabinet, Minister Akbar Tandjung,
\nannounced that Sarwono's remark stemmed merely from a restless
\nconscience sparked by the situation in society. In Minister
\nTandjung's view, Sarwono did nothing wrong by making his
\nstatement. Minister Tandjung also pointed out that Sarwono didn't
\nmention any names in his statement. He also stated that those
\ndemanding Sarwono resign should publicly enumerate their reasons.<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, Maj. Gen. Syarwan Hamid, assistant to the Chief of
\nStaff for Social and Political affairs of the Armed Forces, said
\nthat Sarwono's statement was just a personal opinion, and that it
\nis a normal thing for a democratic society to voice differing
\nopinions. Thus reactions against Sarwono's statement should also
\nbe considered normal.<\/p>\n
Both Minister Akbar Tandjung and Gen. Syarwan Hamid added,
\nhowever, that there are other ways to express criticism or
\ndisagreement. Minister Tandjung mentioned that Sarwono's
\ncriticism could have been expressed in a cabinet meeting, while
\nGen. Syarwan Hamid mentioned an ethical rule stating that the
\nIndonesian Armed Forces must always present itself as an
\nundivided entity when interacting with outside parties. The
\nIndonesian Armed Forces always agrees to one stance in a meeting.
\nIf differences later surface, then those responsible for the leak
\nare considered to have violated the ethical code.<\/p>\n
I have the impression that the establishment lament Sarwono's
\npublic criticism. Many members of the bureaucracy probably wish
\nthe high level discord was never revealed to the public. I also
\nhave a hunch that informing the public about crucial political
\nissues is considered unimportant by most government officials.<\/p>\n
Even when society's well-being is clearly affected by the
\ngovernment's decision, especially now that Indonesia is at a
\npolitical crossroads, the bureaucracy considers it unnecessary to
\nenlighten the public about any political discord that is
\nhappening. Preserving the impression that the government is
\nunquestionably united on all issues seems to be considered
\ninfinitely more important than enlightening the public about the
\nnature of the current political crossroads. Enlightening the
\npublic and leading it towards actively thinking about solutions
\nhas never been considered important.<\/p>\n
I agree that it is unwise to indiscriminately reveal state
\nsecrets to the public. But it is equally unwise, in my opinion,
\nto keep the public ignorant of the issues that affect their well-
\nbeing and the future of the country.<\/p>\n
It is also unwise, I think, to keep the public passive as the
\ncountry faces an important national issue. If we really want to
\npromote democracy in this country, and to give it a chance to
\ngrow, then it is our collective obligation to lead and guide the
\npublic toward understanding national issues, and toward active
\nparticipation in solving these issues.<\/p>\n
The capability of representative democracy to wisely solve
\nnational issues is not unlimited. Outside any establishment there
\nare thousands, if not millions, of individuals who possess a
\nhigher capacity to understand a particular problem than those
\nwithin.<\/p>\n
In the interest of the long-term development of Indonesia,
\nthere are matters better solved by direct democracy than by
\nrepresentative democracy.<\/p>\n
Defining the extent to which political discord among high-
\nranking officials contains issues within the realm of national
\nsecrecy is the main problem. When former South Korean president
\nRoh Tae-woo's involvement in the illegal accumulation of
\npolitical funds was made public, was this a breach of state's
\nsecrecy? Or was it a conscious effort to bring South Korea's
\ndemocracy into a higher level of maturity?<\/p>\n
The principle of guarding state secrets must be carefully
\nweighed against the principle of promoting democracy. As former
\nCIA director, Admiral Stansfield Turner, says in his book Secrecy
\nand Democracy, an overcautious line between secrecy and democracy
\ncan generate a broad skepticism, even cynicism, in society.<\/p>\n
I think we are at a crossroads in our journey towards a
\ndemocratic state. Every conscientious Indonesian should now
\ndetermine the contribution they are willing to give to safeguard
\nthe future of democracy in Indonesia.<\/p>\n
The writer is an observer of social and political affairs.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/moral-dilemma-while-country-nears-political-crossroads-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }