Our political communication<\/p>\n
Many of us probably greeted the comments made on Tuesday by
\nState Minister of Environment Sarwono Kusumaatmadja with mixed
\nfeelings.<\/p>\n
On the one hand, it is certainly reassuring to know that
\nsomeone so high up in the bureaucracy is aware of the need to
\nbring order to the communication clutter in our society. On the
\nother hand, however, it is far less encouraging to see that, even
\nso, little or nothing has apparently been done to resolve the
\nproblem.<\/p>\n
All the talk about democracy is useless, according to Sarwono,
\nas long as the question of poor political communication in this
\ncountry is not resolved. Indonesians, he said, are facing an
\nincreasingly complicated social order which needs to be managed
\nthrough good communication.<\/p>\n
As an example Sarwono mentioned the sudden termination of a
\npopular talk show on SCTV television called Perspektif on which a
\nfew public figures, who could be considered controversial, had
\nappeared. "We know more or less that something was not right
\nbehind that termination, but the only explanation was that the
\nshow was being reviewed," he said.<\/p>\n
Aside from such obvious cases, there are of course many others
\nwhich show that there is little or no communication in the
\nrelationship between the government and the public. Many members
\nof the ruling elite have apparently not yet come to believe in
\nthe importance of good public communication.<\/p>\n
Quite often we hear a minister dismissing press questions with
\nthe words that: "that question is not necessary because the
\nproblem is clear", or "believe me that what I have said is the
\ntruth and you don't need to check". The irony of this kind of
\nsituation is that the question was posed in the first place
\nbecause important aspects of the case in question were unclear to
\nthe public.<\/p>\n
In the case of SCTV's Perspektif program, for example, it
\ncould be asked that, if a cabinet minister does not know why the
\npopular talk show was so abruptly terminated, what about the
\npublic at large? In fact, certain officials have on occasion
\nseemed to have made special efforts to keep the public in the
\ndark regarding certain issues, especially when policies that are
\nregarded as sensitive are involved or legal grounds are lacking.<\/p>\n
One thing is undeniably true: Many officials still regard
\ndebate as an alien tradition that shows a lack of respect and
\ntrust in the authorities. This of course is incorrect. The
\nfounding fathers of our republic inserted in our national
\nConstitution the stipulation that the People's Consultative
\nAssembly (MPR) makes decisions by majority vote, which clearly
\nimplies that debate is very much respected and guaranteed.<\/p>\n
The so-called talks between officials and the press, which are
\nsupposed to convey news and messages to the public, quite often
\nturn into a monologue with reporters having the right only to
\nlisten and carry out new instructions. When the government bans a
\nbook or another publication it usually fails to mention which
\npart of the publication endangers public order or morals.<\/p>\n
This apparently is caused by a lack of respect for the
\npeople's right to know. Too many officials still believe that
\nthey are the holders of the right to reveal or conceal facts as
\nthey see fit. A statement by the governor of the National
\nResilience Institute (Lemhannas), Lt. Gen. Mutojib, before the
\nHouse of Representatives in June saying that "some truths are
\nbest left unsaid, as revealing them could cause unrest and
\ndisrupt national stability" clearly portrays the way of thinking
\nof many officials, who tend to believe that the people are too
\nignorant to accept the truth.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/our-political-communication-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}