Talking the talk in the DPR: An insider's view<\/p>\n
Mochtar Buchori, Legislator, Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle, Jakarta<\/p>\n
Measured by any standard, I am a poor legislator, and I'm not
\na blunt person. So how can a person who outside the legislature
\nis considered reputable, becomes dumb and obfuscates whenever he
\nassumes his role as a legislator?<\/p>\n
Here's why.<\/p>\n
While most members of our House of Representatives (DPR) are
\ngood public speakers, I'm very clumsy when it comes to making
\nspeeches within the House. And while most of them love debates, I
\ndon't. And I hate being interrupted, and I also hate making
\ninterruptions.<\/p>\n
Interruptions, as they have been made within the legislature,
\nare often callow, and sometimes even crude.<\/p>\n
As a teacher for many, many years, I had received good
\ntraining and, in the process, gained considerable experience in
\nthe art of speechmaking.<\/p>\n
But after listening to the talks of other members, I often
\nwonder whether it's even necessary for me to speak. What should I
\nsay not to add more confusion and pollution in the air?<\/p>\n
\"How shall I organize my thoughts to make the structure of the
\nproblem become more perceptible -- and to avoid repeating what
\nhas already been said?\"<\/p>\n
I have an aversion towards people who are pathologically
\nexcessive talkers. I am for discussions that clarify problems,
\nand eventually lead to solutions.<\/p>\n
Debates in the House, on the other hand, seem conducted
\nprimarily for the benefit of people seeking to outwit one
\nanother. Or, for filibustering while awaiting the formulation of
\na political solution.<\/p>\n
Discussions are held to clarify problems, and to find
\nsolutions acceptable to all concerned parties. In political
\ndebates, however, it is emotion that dominates the process, while
\nin non-political discussions, it is reason.<\/p>\n
In most cases, interruptions do not seem necessary.<\/p>\n
If an agenda for a meeting has been agreed upon, why can't we
\njust proceed discussing the problems covered by the agenda? Why
\ndon't we try to spend the allotted time to secure a discussion on
\nthe essence of the matter, and not wasting it by dwelling upon
\nother, unrelated problems?<\/p>\n
Making interruptions is impolite. If you have to make an
\ninterruption at all, you must try to do it in a civilized manner.
\nThere are such manners.<\/p>\n
So I feel like the odd man out in the House -- or like \"a
\nstrange duck in the pond,\" as the Dutch put it.<\/p>\n
\"So why don't you just quit?\" a friend once asked.<\/p>\n
I've tried to, several times. Many friends have talked me out
\nof this so far, however; and one offered particularly hard-
\nhitting advice.<\/p>\n
\"How are you going to live?\" He cited my retirement allowance,
\nmonthly teaching wages and article honorariums, plus medical
\nfees. \"And how much for your wife?\"<\/p>\n
One cannot live properly in Jakarta without income from the
\nlegislature, he said.<\/p>\n
\"Hide your pride and suppress your aristocratic feelings!
\nDon't feel guilty about not doing much talking in the
\nlegislature,\" he said, as long as I continued to write and remind
\npeople of the nation's challenges.<\/p>\n
And consider the monthly \"honorary fee\" from the legislature a
\ncontribution from the state, he said, and from the people, \"to
\nenable you to do what you have to do, and can do, best.\"<\/p>\n
This piece of advice was quite a painful wake-up call to
\nreality.<\/p>\n
Another friend reminded me of the consequences of becoming a
\n\"public figure.\"<\/p>\n
What is important, instead of personal feelings about life in
\nthe House, is \"how your political party and the public feel about
\nyour behavior as a member of our legislature\" -- as long as one
\nwas considered an honest legislator.<\/p>\n
\"Your silence within the noisy legislature can at times be an
\nasset to you and your political party,\" he said.<\/p>\n
Suddenly quitting would hurt the party, he said, as people
\nwould think there might be something wrong with the party's
\nrelationship with its member.<\/p>\n
Quoting a poet, he said, \"stick to the fight when you are
\nhardest hit. It's when things seem worst that you must not quit.\"<\/p>\n
Well-meaning advises apart, I still do not know how to measure
\nthe quality of the legislature, including myself.<\/p>\n
A good legislator should meet standards of morality, legality,
\nand \"politicity,\" or political wisdom.<\/p>\n
But in a country where there is never convergence between
\nthese three standards, how do you approximate such quality of
\npoliticians and legislators?<\/p>\n
There is, indeed, no parliament in the world where every one
\nof its members is always morally scrupulous, legally correct and
\npolitically wise. These are the characteristics of political
\nangels, which there are far too few -- and not of political
\ndevils, of which there are far too many.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/talking-the-talk-in-the-dpr-an-insiders-view-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}