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.