Traditionalism plagues intellectuals too<\/p>\n
Many scholars note that age-old traditionalism and feudalism
\nstill manifest themselves strongly in our daily lives. They
\nwonder why, as a society, we never become mature in the sense of
\nbecoming a more modern nation. Scholar Rizal Mallarangeng dwells
\non this subject.<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): It seems that we never become more democratic,
\nmore rational, more open and more efficient. I share this
\nopinion. To me, the feudalism syndrome not only continues to
\nremain, but is becoming stronger and stronger. To some extent, it
\nregenerates.<\/p>\n
At the elite level, for example, there is a tendency of senior
\ngovernment officials' children to gain an important role both in
\neconomic and in political activities. In the economic sector,
\nthey have controlling power over modern things, including their
\ntechnological and industrial aspects.<\/p>\n
However, the way they come to power is very traditional, very
\nfeudal. They earn it not because of their professional quality.
\nAll the political and economical power they gain is inherited.
\nThey have it merely because of their bloodlines. It's just like a
\nprince who inherited the title because his father happens to be a
\nking.<\/p>\n
This is what I call \"refeudalization\", an analysis first
\nforwarded by a colleague of mine at the University of Gadjah
\nMada. This is in fact very saddening. I am very concerned about
\nthis.<\/p>\n
However, the more alarming thing is the fact that no one seems
\nto be disturbed by it. In the 1970s or 1980s, such a phenomenon
\nwould have elicited people's criticism, protests or even street
\ndemonstrations.<\/p>\n
We tend to be very permissive nowadays. Some have even become
\nardent supporters for those \"noble\" heirs. Unfortunately, the
\nmost powerful party in the country accepts this phenomena as a
\ncommon thing, by allowing the \"noble\" to take part in political
\nactivities. That's why I call this a traditionalism or feudalism
\nsyndrome.<\/p>\n
The situation becomes more apprehending because this
\npermissive attitude can also be found in the intellectual and
\nmore democratic circles. The traditionalism and feudalism
\nsyndromes have infiltrated the world of ideas and opinions. Those
\nwho are supposed to be more intellectual and democratic have been
\ncaught by these syndromes as well.<\/p>\n
The most recent and interesting example of this phenomenon is
\nthe meeting of two important Moslem leaders, Abdurrahman Wahid
\nand Amien Rais, a couple of weeks ago at Sunda Kelapa Mosque in
\nJakarta.<\/p>\n
Most people, especially those who were there at the meeting
\nthat night, had expected an open, public discussion between the
\ntwo. They, myself included, wanted to learn about the allegedly
\ndifferent strategies employed by the two toward democratization.<\/p>\n
At the discussion, people kept asking why there were always
\nthese perceived differences between the two prominent Moslem
\nleaders. One of them, for example, says Moslems have been
\ndiscriminated against in the country, while the other doesn't
\nthink so. One claims that he represents those who fight for
\nMoslem causes, while the other claims that he fights for all
\nIndonesians. One sees Moslems as a political group, while the
\nother sees them as part of Indonesian society as a whole.<\/p>\n
These basic differences between the two leaders need to be
\ndiscussed openly and publicly. It was unfortunate that such a
\nlong-awaited public debate didn't happen. They seemed to be
\nreluctant to do so. One of them said: \"We're friends. How could
\nwe have a debate?\" The other said: \"He often comes to my house.
\nThere's nothing between us.\"<\/p>\n
Personally, showing that they are close friends is good. But
\nthat's not what the society is looking for. People want good and
\nreasonable answers on what issues have caused Gus Dur to differ
\nfrom Amien Rais.<\/p>\n
I don't have any idea as to why it is so. If they think that
\nhaving a public debate will stir the public's emotions, they're
\nwrong. It's just as wrong as the view that a public debate can
\ncause them to lose their followers. If they think so, they will
\nbe just like most government officials, who think that public
\ndebates are destructive. They're not. They're constructive.<\/p>\n
Having a public debate with someone doesn't mean that we are
\nenemies. It's through a public debate that people can search for
\na substantial truth on a given difference of opinion or ideas
\nabout a certain problem. It's also through the discussion that
\npeople will be able to explore both sides' views. By doing so,
\nthey will be able to decide which argument deserves more
\nacceptance than the other.<\/p>\n
Traditionalism syndrome among the elites is easier to explain
\nthan that in the intellectual or democratic world. In the elite
\ngroup, the syndrome is caused by the excessive and almost
\nuncontrollable power of the government.<\/p>\n
Such a phenomenon doesn't occur in Indonesia only. In the
\nUnited States, for example, there are also many children of
\ngovernment officials who are active in both political and
\neconomic spheres. But they are controllable. They have the
\nmechanism to control them. They balance power between the
\ngovernment and the opposition.<\/p>\n
So, the problem of the traditionalism syndrome at the elite
\nlevel can be overcome by setting up the control mechanism. This
\ncan be done through democratization: the resurrection of the
\nmiddle class' power to take part in the development process of
\nthe nation.<\/p>\n
In the long term, about 10 to 15 years, it's quite possible
\nfor the Indonesian middle class to gain such power, but not in
\nthe near future.<\/p>\n
Explaining the cause of a traditional syndrome in the
\nintellectual and democratic groups, on the other hand, is
\ndifficult. I do not have an idea why it's happening. The
\nphenomenon can be easily detected, but not the motives.<\/p>\n
In the 1970s and 1980s, for example, it was common for anyone
\nto engage in polemics with others. We could see them in the
\nnewspaper everyday. It's now difficult to find such a thing.<\/p>\n
It's probable that the syndrome is an internalization of a
\nrepression. It's like a psychological mechanism which
\nautomatically accepts a non-democratic value after being exposed
\nto it for a long time. They become used to it.<\/p>\n
I don't know for sure how accurate my observation is. But what
\nis more important is that the phenomenon occurs, and something
\nhas to be done about it.<\/p>\n
Rizal Mallarangeng is a Ph. D. student in political science at
\nthe Ohio University, Columbus, USA.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/traditionalism-plagues-intellectuals-too-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}