An open letter for Amir Santoso

I'm appalled to see that in the middle of the recent press-ban fury, some of our more senior political scientists still fail to grasp the essence of the situation.

This is particularly evident in the recent "Insight" piece in The Jakarta Post written by Dr. Amir Santoso, a senior political scientist from the University of Indonesia.

In the article entitled "What is the meaning of `freedom of the press?'" Dr. Amir questions some legitimate issues which actually deserve our attention.

Unfortunately, he has fallen into the nasty trap of using the stock phrases that have been plaguing our society for some time.

Dr. Amir, first of all, blasts those he calls "some members of our younger generation and intellectuals" who "demand instant democracy." He thinks that those people neglect "traditional culture" and "political immaturity" and underestimate the problems of poverty eradication and economic injustice.

Dr. Amir, in short, believes that those socioeconomic problems must be handled prior to issues of "instant democratization."

Of course, if "instant democratization" means a foolish process of instant copying of other countries' political institutions, Dr. Amir might have a case.

The problem is, many of our citizens -- which include murdered factory workers like Marsinah as well as repressed college professors -- have increasingly, and rightfully, defined democratization simply as the exercise of the citizens' right to inquire and question government policies which concern their livelihood.

In the light of the recent US$620 million credit scam over a state-owned development bank (compare this to the austere $190 million allocated in the 1994-1995 state budget for the rural poverty assistance program for over 20,000 villages) and poor policy coordination clearly evident in the PP20 controversy, Dr. Amir's arguments just do not make sense.

In an age in which privileged vested interests co-exist with the country's financial constraints and rampant inefficiency, it is downright silly to argue that the "demand for democracy" is separate or inferior to the problems of poverty eradication or attaining economic justice.

There is nothing culturally, constitutionally or economically wrong for the citizens, or the press, to demand some explanations from officials who have made some murky transactions.

As for endangering national security, Dr. Amir should know that this ambiguous concept has the tendency to become a pretext for various governments to end all public inquiries.

We all know there were no riots or clear signs of national danger preceding the closures of those publications. We all know that even in the middle of the heat surrounding the Medan riot and the Dili Incident in November 1991, no publications "lost their licenses."

In his piece, Dr. Amir surmises that we must value the inherent nature of the Indonesian political culture in viewing the country's political development.

First, he says that "culturally, in Indonesia, the government's position has always traditionally been strong." Secondly, he proposes that "almost all Indonesians have a deep and inherent aversion to public criticism."

It is clear that by asserting these points, Dr. Amir implies the concept of "culture" as a fixed or constant phenomenon.

Since it is almost indisputable that "culture" is, essentially, a creation of a human's mind and behavior, such an implication is incorrect. Human social behavior is often unpredictable and constantly changing with its environment.

In essence, "culture" is in itself a process, a "becoming" rather than a "being," as philosophers would state it.

Consequently, an a priori assumption like "it is the inherent nature of most Indonesians to be criticism shy" is highly questionable to the extend that it has become nothing more than a laughable red herring.

However, even granting the notion that the Indonesian government must be kept strong due to "cultural" considerations, this argument runs thin in light of the country's ineffectual administration controlled by a privileged few who are prepared to undermine the country's long-term economic interests for their immediate profits.

Bringing the subject closer to home, it is wise to remember the warning given by our own prominent historian Dr. Taufik Abdullah, who once said that "repeated use of cultural relativism can hamper the democratization process because it encourages self-indulgence and complacency."

HIDAYAT JATI Jakarta