Distant voices of national conscience

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empty rhetoric, outdated slogans, and unkept promises, it is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.