Dialog vital among political groupings

The burgeoning of political parties in this post-Soeharto era is just one of many indications of people's restlessness in coping with change. B.S. Mardiatmadja, a lecturer at Driyarkara School of Philosophy, strives to find the reason for this restlessness.

JAKARTA (JP): There are many currents in our society: Some moving toward union and others toward fragmentation.

Some political groups in the country are striving for unity, expressed through initiatives for interreligious dialogs and in proposals for reconciliation. On the other hand, there is a distant cry for decentralization and even a growing political and religious pluralism due to the creation and diffusion of new parties and denominations at the regional and national levels.

For people on the streets, this situation is far from peaceful. Some call for leaders of different parties to debate through the media. To make such a debate fruitful, there should be a common ground established.

Current nationalistic and spiritual movements are expressing a need to return to fundamentals -- both in the context of religion and politics.

Not only have these new groups energetically called for the preservation of certain nationalistic and religious ideas inherent in the country's culture, but they have also highlighted many of the political implications stemming from certain myths about our societal legacy.

This trend, however, has also brought about many new ideas which have prompted groups to break away from established institutions or doctrine in the community -- some to emerge as a radical alternative to the dominant group and culture in a specific area.

The result is an increasing fragmentation in society, which is happening in nearly all aspects of life, especially in political life. Some are now questioning the legitimacy and even morality of certain policies, judicial decisions and political incidents, including the March 11 handover of power from Sukarno to Soeharto.

The trend has been attributed to various causes, whether historical, social-cultural, economic and political, while some have concluded it is due to the reform movement.

One explanation for the trend, however, seems to ring more true than others: a thirst for the sacred. There is a current explosion of people searching for the spiritual, even in the most secularized of groups.

While on the one hand many people seem to be fervently pursuing material needs in a quest to fulfill materialistic desires, on the other, we are witnessing a desperate search for meaning, the need for an inner life and a desire to learn new forms and methods of meditation and prayer.

This is happening not only in subcultures with strong religious beliefs, but also in secularized subcultures, where the spiritual dimension of life is being sought after as an antidote to dehumanization.

Facing a growing plurality of paths opening up in economic, political and religious quests, some exalt pluralism as the highest value that expresses the creativity and freedom of man -- the new savior of our society. Many others, on the contrary, aspire to justify pluralism by finding an element of unity among all paths. Different ways of encountering other groups which are based on different models of unity derive from this aspiration.

Nationalistic movements to unify the country could take on the form of several models. One model stems from the concept that an essential unity is developed through an all-pervasive primordial nationalism. The existence of nationalism -- acknowledged but veiled and whose nucleus of truths is only contained in and revealed by esoteric nationalistic doctrines -- is taken for granted.

Groups in the model are allowed to express their nationalistic doctrines through their own political traditions in order to return to their roots. Relations among different groups are embedded with a sense of mission to purify themselves and thus unite in what is essential and transcends them.

A second model could be expressed through political groups responding to the challenge of nationalistic pluralism by presenting themselves as a vehicle superseding the cacophony of nationalistic expressions in society. The interdenominational initiatives promoted by these movements are inspired by a mission of attaining unity.

One way that we may see this is how one party could claim to assist people wishing to examine the diversities and divisions within groups and facilitate reconciliations within political groupings.

A third but similar model would be the possibility of a new party that transcends all existing parties. Such a party would unite the country by pointing to the crisis as a need for people to transcend economic, religious, cultural and tribal boundaries to solve the nation's problems.

Overall, the basis and model for interparty dialog is the unity of the Indonesian people forged through a national consciousness and similar ideals. It is not a question of uniting or unifying parties, but of reconciling people in the common awareness that they belong to a single Indonesian family.