Corruption? 'Right or wrong, my party"

Corruption? 'Right or wrong, my party"

Mochtar Buchori, Legislator, Indonesian Democratic
Party of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan), Jakarta

We all know the English saying, "Right or wrong, my country."
According to one source, this is a variant of a statement made by
an American commodore, S. Decatur (1779-1820). Commodore Decatur
was said to have stated the following when proposing a toast in
Norfolk: "Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations,
may she always be in the right, but -- our country, right or
wrong!"

But according to another source, this popular saying
originated from another English saying, a sentence coined by C.
Churchill, who in the book The Farewell (1764) wrote the
following: "Be England what she will / With all her faults she is
my country still."

In any case, the above saying is used to express one's
absolute loyalty to one's country. It is a solemn pledge,
promising one's readiness to serve the country.

Lately, a new variant of this popular saying seems to be
budding in our society, i.e. "right or wrong, my party." This is
the sort of feeling that seems to dominate the minds of many
members of many political parties. To these people, their party
can do no wrong, and it must therefore be defended against any
attempt to undermine it.

Two different ways seem to be followed today to implement this
pledge. One is by "punishing" those considered to be endangering
the party, using violence if need be. The other is by "purifying"
the party, i.e. cleansing the party of all elements that
perpetrate malpractices within it.

I have always had reservations about the above English saying,
and have always tried to avoid using it. And I am even less
comfortable still with its derivative, "Right or wrong, my
party." I fear someone will advocate a still smaller derivative,
"Right or wrong, my leader." Under this banner, members of every
political party will then be urged not only to be loyal to the
party, but also be loyal to its leader, especially its supreme
leader.

If and when this happens, I fear we will find ourselves more
deeply entrenched in a political culture that is oriented
entirely towards personalities. This will prevent us from moving
towards a genuine democratic society, which can be accomplished
only by developing and establishing a political culture that is
oriented towards society and all its members.

If one chooses to interpret the original saying as meaning
that every citizen should be loyal to the country without losing
sight of basic ethics concerning respect for human life and
humanity, then the pledge of blind loyalty to the party is
invalid, and therefore unacceptable.

If, on the other hand, one chooses to interpret the saying as
meaning that it is always the country that must be served first,
whatever the situation may be -- then within this mindset it is
quite logical and consistent that one gives his or her loyalty
entirely to the party and its leaders. I would call this kind of
loyalty "barbarous loyalty."

What kind of political culture do we need to develop? If we
really want to have a democratic society, how are we going to
proceed from where we are now to a political life that places the
welfare and interests of the people as our central concern?

This transformation towards a "civic political culture" cannot
be taken for granted. So many abuses are perpetrated in the name
of "democracy". One of these is the slogan of "defending the
leader", taken to mean "defending the party" and "defending the
country." Criticizing a leader is subversive; or worse, a
betrayal of the country.

This way of looking at things can create confusion among the
rank and file of any political party. The sad thing is that at
the moment this confusion seems to prevail in a number of
parties. It exists within the PDI Perjuangan, within the Golkar
Party, and, I think, also within the National Awakening Party
(PKB) and the United Development Party (PPP).

Who has committed treachery in the PDI Perjuangan: Kwik Kian
Gie or the ones who have allowed, or even urged, individuals
within the party to commit corruption?

Who is trying to restore the honor of the Golkar Party: Those
who want its chairman to resign or those who have been trying to
defend him until the very end? Which of the two rival PKB camps
is really betraying the original mission of the party?

Every side involved in these controversies has its own way of
justifying its position.

I cannot pretend to be an arbiter, either. I have simply made
my choice of how to interpret the above saying.

But what worries me is the bleak prospect of the next
generation being incapable of interpreting the meaning of "right
or wrong, my country" within any given set of circumstance.