Distant voices of national conscience

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): I have heard voices for at least the last two months. "Voices of national conscience". Very faintly at first, but they grow louder and louder every time.

These are voices which express the public's perception and feeling of what is right and what is wrong in our society today.

They are very different from the ones I have heard for many years in our formal political parlance. The most audible of these voices is, in my view, that of Minister Siswono Yudohusodo.

Speaking as an individual citizen in a recent seminar in Bandung, he said the criteria of propriety have changed in our society. Old criteria have been abandoned, and new criteria have arisen, which in effect are distortions of the old ones.

"We then cry," he said, "because we have to accept these distorted values, and we have to live with them. Our homeland has been deeply grieved having to witness so many of its sons and daughters undergo changes in their character and behavior. The word 'smart' has gradually become to mean 'iniquitous', while the word 'honest' has increasingly become to mean 'stupid'."

He said further that hypocrisy, greediness, and excessive materialistic behavior have become so ubiquitous in our society, while "heartfelt selflessness (ketulusan), sincere forbearance (keikhlasan), and plain honesty (kepolosan) have been pushed aside to the remotest corners within our country."

I find these statements so refreshing. After years of obligatory listening to political speeches that are filled with empty rhetoric, outdated slogans, and unkept promises, it is really very comforting to hear a high level functionary saying things that are so close to truth and reality. I wonder whether -- and hope that -- we have finally come to a phase in our national life where our leaders have come to the realization that they must be honest towards the public, and that they should not close their eyes to all shortcomings that still exist in our society.

Is it realistic to speculate and hope like this? I am not sure, but this hopeful speculation has been strengthened by statements made by two other ministers: State Minister of National Development Planning Ginandjar Kartasasmita and Coordinating Minister for Industry and Trade Hartarto.

Minister Ginandjar in his address to participants of the fist congress of book producers suggested that books which have thus far been banned be made available to scholars working in universities and in research institutions. "In order to become a good economist one must read Karl Marx's Das Kapital, and in order to become a good political scientist one must read Hitler's Mein Kampf," he said. It is only by reading the original works that one will be able to identify the correct and the faulty ideas contained in a book. Any intelligent reader will notice these two different aspects of any book he or she is reading, and will be able to decide later on which parts of the book can be disseminated to others and which parts should be kept for oneself, because it will be unwise to disperse them further to others. No intelligent reader would just carelessly "propagate" ideas he or she finds in a book.

In addition to being refreshing, I find this statement also very encouraging. For my part, this practice of banning books has lasted too long. I personally witnessed the most barbaric expression of this mentality in 1965 at a college where I taught. The books considered liberal, imperialistic and capitalistic were taken from the library shelves and burned in the schoolyard. A number of faculty members, professors and lecturers, in addition to a number of students and administrative personnel, were present. When the fire was lighted, most of the students and administrative personnel, and some of the professors, applauded loudly.

I felt very, very sad and sick at the time, and this feeling was made worse by the knowledge that there was nothing I could do to prevent or stop this mad act. Since then I developed a trauma toward any form of book banning. I feel humiliated and insulted every time someone orders or suggests the banning of a book. I feel that such an act is not only an affront to my intellect and intelligence, but also that it violates my moral integrity and autonomy.

Minister Hartarto joined this chorus of refreshing voices when he said on June 1 that this country should start dismantling monopolistic and oligopolistic practices. Speaking in Yogyakarta to more than 200 students of economics, Minister Hartarto said that protection, monopoly and oligopoly contradict the principles of fair competition. Any industry developed on the basis of monopolistic and oligopolistic practices will hamper the emergence of supporting and related industries.

What is so special about this statement? To me it is special, because it represents an opinion which is currently shared widely by the public, that monopolistic practices currently carried out in our country have done much more harm than good to the public. This statement is also important to me, because it indicates that even at the highest echelon of our society reason still prevails, and that people with power still listen to their conscience.

As long as our society is able to keep this kind of climate alive, there is always hope that all the wrongdoings plaguing our society today will one day be stopped and corrected. Seen within this context, hoping and working for a better future is a realistic act, and not an illusionary dream. To me this is the most important meaning of this phenomenon.

The latest among these refreshing voices was that of Maj. Gen. Wiranto, head of the Jakarta military command. Answering a question from the press, he said that the time has come for us to correct a popular but wrong perception about non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Thus far the dominant perception that prevails in our society is that NGOs are troublemakers, and that they are constantly opposing the government. According to Gen. Wiranto, this is an opinion that has been nurtured by those who do not know what NGO's are, and have no first-hand knowledge of how they operate in real life. General Wiranto maintained that if we are willing to look at NGOs with a clear mind, and free ourselves from biases and prejudices, we will see that NGOs are in general partners of the government in establishing and maintaining order in our society. In the majority of cases, he said, NGOs' act as the middleman or link between the government and the public.

Based on this evaluation, he urged the public to change their attitude toward NGOs. On the other hand, he also urged NGOs not to be provoked by the faulty perceptions about them, and not to plunge into patterns of behavior that have been set up on purpose as traps for them.

To me this is another refreshing voice. There is little doubt, in my opinion, that in the past Indonesian NGOs have repeatedly been suspected and accused of initiating or organizing activities that displease the government. In light of such historical background, I think that this statement will revive and strengthen the hope that the society at large has about NGOs, that they will guide and help them in solving the problems that beset society.

Rationally I believe that I am justified in fostering hope for a new era in our national life. But somehow doubt lingers in my mind about the dawning of this new era in our real life. Among these encouraging signs I heard one small note which is really disturbing to me. It is an announcement made by the Directorate General of Higher Education which says in effect that students may no longer invite "vocal personalities" from outside the campus to give lectures within university compounds. To me this is a move which forcefully counters all the encouraging currents I mentioned above.

So what is really happening? I am not quite sure. It might be that this is just another sign of lack of coordination among government offices. A phenomenon that has been long familiar to us all. But it can also be that this contradiction reflects the basic tension that currently exist within our society, the tension between those who want to move ahead into a new era within our national life on the one hand and those who want to preserve the present situation on the other, because they do not see any need to change anything within our present condition. To use an old cliche: it is the tension between proponents of progress on the one hand and proponents of stability on the other.

Whatever the real situation may be, I believe that it is the sincere hope of the public at large that those who have the power to influence the course of the dynamics of the nation are willing to see things beyond the confines of personal and group interests. It is also our hope, I think, that these persons have the ability to perceive our country and our society within the context of future situations, the ability to perceive imaginatively how our country and our society will probably look by 2003 and on up to 2020. It is again our sincere hope that our leaders will be able to capture the spirit of the future, and refuse to be trapped and blinded by the situation that presently exists in our environment.

Is it too much to hope for all of this? I hope not!

The writer is an observer of social and cultural affairs.