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.