Broadcasted discussions peculiar to Indonesia

Broadcasted discussions peculiar to Indonesia

The election campaign has now entered its third week.
Sociologist Ignas Kleden focuses on the so-called dialogical
campaign.

JAKARTA (JP): Indonesia's general election is a peculiar
campaign which possibly is not to be found in any other country.
It has been called a "dialogical" campaign, as opposed to the
monolog of a politician in front of a political rally.

In reality this is a new kind of campaign. A representative of
a political group speaks about the programs of their party for 15
minutes before a question and answer session. This dialog takes
place indoors with a limited audience and a fairly limited time:
30 minutes.

The presentation and discussion are guided by a moderator and
broadcast on television. Before the discussion, the text should
be scrutinized by a government committee and the discussants
selected. Everything is arranged, and all that is missing is the
political spontaneity which leaves the door open to surprises.

The proposal for such a dialog came from Golkar and was
reportedly drawn up at its second leaders' meeting (Rapim) in
Jakarta from Oct. 17 to Oct. 19, 1995. The two other political
parties were not involved in the dialog regarding the nature of a
dialogical campaign, and had to accept what Golkar considered to
be a suitable method for promoting political education.

"To be frank, it is Golkar that wanted to have this dialogical
campaign. We were invited merely to talk about something which
has been decided on by the government. Well, we cannot help but
accept it, though I know that the so-called dialogical campaign
is not practical," said United Development Party chairman Ismail
Hasan Metareum (Kompas, May 9, 1997).

Golkar chairman Harmoko has denied the allegation that Golkar
prefabricated the dialogical campaign. Such statements have
confused the public as to whom is really responsible for the
implementation of the dialogical campaign. Be that as it may, if
the two other political parties are not involved, it has already
become clear that this mode of campaign is not dialogical. It is
superimposed from somewhere else.

If the process of creating this campaign is not dialogical,
what about its implementation? As it turned out, what is meant by
dialog is also peculiar. A dialog implies a two-way discussion
between two or more parties. But in the case of a dialogical
campaign it means a dialog within one party, namely that between
the speaker and those who are selected to be present and to raise
questions. In reality there is no dialog between Golkar and PDI,
or PDI and PPP, and Golkar and PPP, but only an in-house talk
among the party members and party sympathizers.

What is the main purpose of the dialogical campaign? According
to Harmoko, it is an opportunity for people to reason and raise
questions and ideas which might contribute to the improvement of
the drafting of the Guidelines of State Policy.

If this is an honest goal, one might wonder why the
opportunity for political reasoning, raising questions and ideas
were not enhanced before the campaign by providing the people
with more opportunities and less political taboos.

Why is political openness so limited and at the same time the
government talks about improving political reasoning? One of the
most effective ways to improve reasoning is to promote the
ability to face differences and to learn something positive from
them.

We tend to forget that thinking in general and political
thinking in particular are the product not only of political
engineering but also of a political culture. You cannot expect
someone to suddenly be able to produce ideas if one is not
accustomed to doing so. Needless to say, one is accustomed to
producing ideas if there is enough opportunity to do so enabled
by political openness. The ability to think politically cannot be
separated from the habit or the courage of doing so. At this
point, to a certain extent, logic can also not be separated from
politics.

Another aspect of the dialogical campaign is that the public's
encounter with a political audience is missing. Rallies have
their own risks, just like driving cars. But you cannot escape
accidents by refusing to drive a car. Politics is not only
statecraft, but also stateliness, the appearance, the theater,
and the celebration, to quote American anthropologist Clifford
Geertz. One cannot govern the people who do not feel involved.
Stateliness is the marshaling of people's engagement by touching
upon the feeling, meeting their curiosity and providing the
meaning.

Of course we have to think positively of the dialogical
campaign, while waiting for the results which are now being
propagated. But even the least critical observer can safely say
that there are some political elements which are now missing in
this campaign.

First, there is limited political spontaneity which could push
for more political intelligence. Logic, rhetoric, style,
appearance and outfit are lacking. Politics is something to be
administered, but it is also a matter of performing capacity.
Politics is different from bureaucracy as it deals not only with
programs and concepts but also with people.

Second, there is no opportunity to implement fair competition
among political parties. Analogically speaking, we wish to see
political "sportsmanship", whereby one is brave enough to salute
the victory of his or her opponents in an all-out fight. After
more than 50 years of national independence, there seems to be no
pretext under which to say that this nation is still immature for
a fair political struggle, a clever debate and an elegant
competition.