Pragmatism determines choice<\/p>\n
Benny Susetyo, Jakarta<\/p>\n
Political culture plays a dominant role in a paternalistic
\nsociety like Indonesia's. The patron-client pattern forms the
\nbasis for the relationship among community members.<\/p>\n
In this patron-client pattern, the behavior of social groups
\nare generally in tune with what they deem to be their political
\nor social role models. They will never bother to find out whether
\nthis attitude is correct, but simply believe that the social
\ngroup they have made their role model will benefit them,
\nsocially, economically and politically. Obviously, in this
\npattern of relationship, pragmatism of interest is the dominant
\nfactor.<\/p>\n
This pattern marks the demonstrations of support for
\ncandidates in the July 5 presidential election and the Sept. 20
\nrunoff. Various social, economic, political and cultural groups
\nhave thrown their support behind the candidates of their choice.
\nOf course, they never forget to emphasize that their decision was
\nmade after careful consideration, both internally and
\ninstitutionally.<\/p>\n
However, in announcing their support these groups obviously
\nhave an interest in sharing in the power. Apart from sticking to
\npaternalistic culture, these groups, culturally, are generally
\nstill at the level of relationship between a patron and a client,
\na master and a servant, and so forth.<\/p>\n
These groups have never taken the position of a patron because
\nthey lack independence and always rely on other people for their
\nsurvival. They always take the position of a client and fully
\nrely on favors from other people for their survival.<\/p>\n
This situation reflects the present political reality in our
\nsociety.<\/p>\n
As part of our "culture", the political elite's practice of
\nthrowing support to a certain group or person can also be
\nperceived as a reflection of their own confusion in facing
\nchanges in the behavior of voters in determining their leaders.
\nVoters' increased maturity in making their own choices has made
\nit difficult for the political elite to interpret what the people
\nreally want.<\/p>\n
People are aware that the political elite do not really
\nreflect their own lives or goals. They understand that they have
\nbeen considered "beasts of burdens and milk cows", to be used and
\nthen abandoned. This reality has made the political elite lose
\ntheir orientation, because they find it difficult to understand
\nwhat the people really need.<\/p>\n
Changing times are marked by a changing social system. In the
\npast, once you took hold of a community figure, you could be sure
\nthat members of his group would follow him or her. Things have
\nchanged. People no longer nurture any emotional ties with these
\nso-called community figures because these people, regarded as
\nhaving strong popular bases, actually do not live among the
\ncommunity.<\/p>\n
The political elite adopt "on-behalf-of-the-people" or
\n"in-the-name-of-the-people" politics. They do not realize that
\nthese types of politics, which for a long time served as a source
\nof legitimacy, have become increasingly blurred in meaning. The
\npeople no longer want to be treated as a rubber stamp for those
\nin power. They have begun to realize and believe that the
\npolitical elite know virtually nothing about their needs.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, the political elite fail to realize that
\ntheir type of politics has led to a high sense of pragmatism on
\nthe part of the people. The people now make choices on the basis
\nof whether these choices will ensure that their basic needs will
\nbe fulfilled. This stance is reflected in their attitude in
\nchoosing subdistrict heads.<\/p>\n
Their basic consideration is not who deserves to be elected,
\nbut what the candidates will give to them. This is the reason the
\nchoice of the people is easy to predict, because this choice is
\ndetermined by the prevailing conditions.<\/p>\n
Unfortunately, the political elite have failed to perceive
\nthis reality because they are too busy making high-level
\npolitical deals, establishing all sorts of coalitions. They
\nforget that these deals will not influence the decisions being
\nmade at the grassroots level.<\/p>\n
The public is taught to give support to a certain group or a
\nparticular person, and is geared not to be neutral or critical
\nwhen making its choice. What is wrong with giving support? It is
\npublic knowledge that money plays a role behind this support.<\/p>\n
The public is accustomed to supporting one candidate today and
\nanother one the next day. As a result, slowly but surely, the
\ncommunity has become increasingly more pragmatic.<\/p>\n
A figure alone is no longer central in determining choice.
\nRather, this choice will depend on the answer to the question:
\n"What can I get now?"<\/p>\n
The writer is a cultural observer<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/pragmatism-determines-choice-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }