Bali clashes indicate poor political education

Bali clashes indicate poor political education

Mochtar Buchori, Legislator, Jakarta

What will the 2004 general election bring us? A better
political life and better governance, or will we remain locked in
the present political situation? Or, could it be that it will
take us into a more disorderly political life?

Sometimes I see signs suggesting that the next political
generations will be able to mold a better political situation in
our country. But there are times where I think that we will have
a more clouded political situation in the immediate future.

Against this mental backdrop, news about recent political
clashes in several towns -- especially the one in Bali -- made me
feel pessimistic about our future. This incident forewarns a
political future that very probably will be equally as confusing
as our present one.

These clashes happened in spite of all the signs that the up-
and-coming politicians are very well aware of the mistakes
committed by their seniors. And their rhetoric indicates that
they are determined not to repeat those mistakes. Yet, similar
mistakes are being made today: Conducting campaigns that are
overly aggressive, threatening opponents with the use violence,
demonstrating valor in ways that intimidate others, and
corruption in handling campaign funds. The signs are all there to
see for those who want to see them.

What will it take to make younger politicians carry out a
political game that will bring about significant social
improvements in our surroundings?

Some people have suggested political education. They argue
that only through political education that induces the young
towards a more mature political thinking will we have generations
of politicians that understand the problems of the nation and are
willing to accept the mission of their respective generation.

This camp argues that it is only if and when these two things
-- understanding the problems of the nation and accepting the
mission of each generation -- are clearly understood that we will
see the coming of a less selfish generation, i.e., a generation
able to organize itself to labor for a common national goal, and
not only for the glory and victory of one's party.

Others hold that what we need now is not political education,
but education that will give the young the ability to see
opportunities for change and capture such opportunities in a
timely manner. This camp argues that important social changes are
not brought about by politicians, but by people who understand
historical forces that create opportunities.

Both views are correct. We have to provide education not only
to prospective politicians, but to the polity, i.e., the general
public as well. To some extent the behavior of politicians, that
is, the way they think and the way they perceive things, is
influenced and controlled by the public awareness concerning what
is going on in their lives and what is at stake for them.

In a society where the public is well informed concerning the
condition of their society, and is knowledgeable about existing
choices, it will not be easy for politicians to fool the public.

But in a society where the public is ignorant about the
possibility of having a better life and of conditions that might
alter their lives, it is quite easy to entice people with
promises that will never be kept.

This reminds me of a late friend, a physician, who told me
once that "this country is full of fools; at every corner there
is a fool waiting for you to fool them."

Within the present circumstances what is needed is thus two
kinds of political education; one for the public at large and
another for would-be politicians. Who should carry out these two
tasks, and what should be the main program of each one of them?

Political education for the public is the responsibility of
the family and of the school. These two institutions are
responsible for generating a polity that is sufficiently informed
about what we are and what we have as a nation, and what we can
realistically aspire to as a nation. Only a realistic view of
what we are and what we can be can prevent us from being carried
away by wild political dreams.

Education for would-be politicians is essentially the job of
political parties and social organizations with political
ambitions. In our present condition, this kind of education
should primarily aim at generating a new breed of politician --
politicians who can balance the interests of the nation and those
of one's party or group.

Continuing the old practice of kaderisasi, or producing new
members fanatically loyal to the party, can no longer be
warranted.

Encouraging a polity to become realistic in its perceptions
and aspirations is not an easy task within a society with a long
tradition of glorifying its past, exaggerating its potential, and
underestimating its current problems.

Moving people in the direction of a balanced attachment to
national and group interests -- which means reducing political
egotism -- is equally hard in a society where obedience and
loyalty have always been considered as core political values, and
where the "we versus they" notion has always been stronger than
the "we" concept.

Can we accept this historical challenge?