Finding balance between stability and change

Finding balance between stability and change

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): The seven-page resolution in the ASEAN summit in
Kuala Lumpur last month, called ASEAN Vision 2020, states that
ASEAN is "an outward-looking Association of Southeast Asian
Nations, living in peace, stability and prosperity in a dynamic,
caring community".

Since this is a goal for all of ASEAN, I think every member
country has the moral obligation to steer their respective
societies in this direction.

While "living in peace, stability and prosperity in a dynamic,
caring community" is a very lofty ideal, it must be acknowledged
that this ideal contains elements that, within the framework of
our present style of governance, will be very hard to reconcile.

Stability is a concept that emphasizes immutability and
permanence, and therefore resistant to change and displacement,
whereas prosperity is a concept that presupposes continuous
change within our present demographic and economic settings.

No country, within or outside ASEAN, will be able to give real
prosperity to its people unless it is willing and capable to
continuously reevaluate itself and inject the right kind of
change into society.

This means that if this lofty ASEAN ideal is to materialize,
ASEAN countries must design a model of stability that does not
preclude, prohibit or punish every kind of change. Certain kinds
of change must be allowed to happen.

ASEAN countries must thus make a clear distinction between
"static stability" that will lead toward conservativeness, and
"dynamic stability" that will lead toward progressiveness. At the
same time they must also make a distinction between "destructive
change" that creates unmanageable chaos and "constructive change"
that promises improvements in the future.

Assuming the modernization process within Indonesia is to be
continued, we must remember that even modern countries modernize
themselves. It will be very hard for our country to entirely
avert destabilizing changes. This is because, as Samuel
Huntington pointed out, while modernity generates political
stability, the process of modernization itself breeds
instability.

The test of ingenuity that will be faced by our leaders is
whether or not they have the ability to accurately calculate and
recalculate the amount of instability that will be allowed to
happen during any given period of time to enable society to
change and move toward political stability.

History shows us that no society has ever achieved genuine
political stability based on progress without experiencing some
form of instability beforehand and without the ability to recover
from temporary instability.

The absence of such ability will engulf a society in chaotic
instability forever.

If we look at the way the problem of stability in our country
has been approached and handled thus far, I seriously doubt that
within the near future we will be able to steer our society
toward a genuinely peaceful, stable, prosperous, dynamic and
caring community.

Even if a play relating the story of the late labor activist
Marsinah is not allowed to be performed, then what we get is
neither stability nor a caring community, but political and
cultural suffocation.

If an innocent person without a previous criminal record is
forced to admit to committing a murder just for the sake of
creating the impression that the police had the capability of
maintaining order and stability, then what we get is neither
peace nor stability, but a public sense that we are being ruled
in a ruthless and oppressive way.

If this way of promoting stability remains unchanged, then as
a nation we will never be able to generate cultural and social
dynamics that will eventually lead us toward significant social,
political and economic change. It is these changes that bring
about phenomena like enlightened citizenship, a mature democracy,
and greater prosperity.

A dynamic and caring community can never be reached through
oppressive measures. Such a community can be reached only through
political leadership which fosters empathy and encourages mutual
help among people.

A leadership which relies on force, intimidation and
manipulative methods to hold the public in check will make the
public lose faith in the ideal of a caring community.

The presence of such leadership indicates that there is, in
reality, no real leader around. This is because, as Napoleon
Bonaparte said, "a leader is a dealer in hope".

Taking into account our present inclinations for maintaining
order and stability, I think that our nation still has a very
long way to go before it is ready to embrace and actively seek a
culture of leadership that emphasizes empathy, trust and respect
for public intelligence and sensibilities.

Our present and next generations of political leaders will
have to engage themselves in critical reflections about social
dynamics to be able to strike a healthy balance between measures
to maintain stability and devices to promote a dynamic and caring
community.

Failure to find such a balance will cause our country to be
locked in pseudo-stability that in the long run will eat away the
creative potential of the nation.

As far as I know, there are two strategies that can be
followed to find this balance. One is by applying a model of
stability that will enable the public to carry out improvements
within their environment without resorting to destructive acts.

This is possible only if there is mutual trust between the
public and its leaders, and if the leaders continuously update
their understanding concerning the aspirations and feelings of
the public.

The second strategy is what is known as a "pendulum strategy".
In this strategy a country moves back and forth between a policy
of rigid control to ensure stability and a policy which allows a
certain degree of freedom to enable the public to express its
ideas concerning change and improvement.

This strategy can be implemented only if the rigid controls
applied during a given time period do not kill the will and the
vision of the public concerning a better future. Where are we now
in this journey toward a peaceful, stable, prosperous, dynamic
and caring society? How do we go from here?

This is a grand question that can only be answered by grand
minds with a grand vision. And to paraphrase Jonathan Swift
(1667-1745), an English satirist, it is only those who can see
things invisible that will have the ability to build a grand
vision.

The writer is an observer of social and cultural affairs.