General tussles with old personal attachment

General tussles with old personal attachment

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): In his latest statement on his links with
Soeharto, Gen. Wiranto said the relationship was "cultural" and
not "structural". It is therefore untrue to say that he still
receives and carries out orders from the former president.

He added that, as an Oriental, he is bound by oriental values
and traditions which, among other things, require a younger
person to show reverence toward the elderly. In addition Wiranto
was also an adjutant to the man who ruled Indonesia for 32 years.

Against this background it is impossible for him to act as if
former president Soeharto is now a nonperson who no longer
deserves any respect from anyone in society. He hoped that the
public understood his position, and also understands the nature
of the relationship.

However, I find the choice of the expression "cultural"
unfortunate and confusing. It is usually used to denote a
relationship between two countries or nations. Used in this sense
the Indonesian term usually employed is hubungan kebudayaan and
not hubungan kultural.

In this context the term cultural relationship denotes a
relationship that emphasizes an active exchange of information on
culture in the broadest sense of the word to enhance a political
or diplomatic relationship.

Whenever one wants to refer to a relationship between two
people that is characterized by a close or intimate bond, the
Indonesian expression employed is usually hubungan pribadi
(personal relationship), and not hubungan kultural (cultural
relationship). I suspect that the expression hubungan kultural
was purposely chosen to create semantic confusion, and that this
confusion is needed to conceal an ambivalent link.

The ambivalence lies in the fact that while at the official
level there is nothing that binds Wiranto to citizen Soeharto, at
the personal level there is a very strong bond between the two.
To those who look at this particular situation from a traditional
(meaning Javanese) point of view, this separation of personal and
official relationships is highly commendable as it reflects
maturity and wisdom.

If we look, however, at this particular situation from the
viewpoint of modern state management, it will become immediately
obvious that such ambivalence is not commendable at all. It is
dangerous and therefore lamentable.

What actually is a hubungan kultural between or among
individuals?

In my understanding it is a relationship that connotes the
sharing of certain common core values. It means that there is a
feeling of spiritual brotherhood or sisterhood between or among
persons who feel interrelated in such a way.

It denotes a relationship that is filled with what the Dutch
call geestesverwantschap, a feeling of bonding that is
characterized by a spiritual affinity.

The term cultural relationship thus presupposes the existence
of bonds that run deeper than ties forged by connections that are
not anchored to commitments to core or basic values in life.

Is this the nature of Wiranto's relationship with Soeharto? No
one can answer this question except the general himself.

It should be noted in this connection that in most people's
perception Wiranto and former president Soeharto are standing on
opposite sides of the current political fence. While Wiranto is
looked upon as one of the forces that spearheaded the current
reform movement, former president Soeharto is seen as the man who
caused all the trouble that made reform necessary.

By describing his relationship with Soeharto as cultural,
Wiranto seems to want to indicate that there is nothing basic
that separates him from the former president. While this may be
confusing to the general public, it is not confusing to those who
can see the ambivalence in Wiranto's feeling toward former
president Soeharto.

The crucial question in this regard is whether the "cultural
relationship" which is supposed to be apolitical impinges on the
way the general carries out his political duties.

This question lingers in the mind of the public because there
are signs which make the public think that Soeharto is still
calling the shots in important state affairs.

His influence in the ruling Golkar party, for instance, is
still quite visible. This fact reaffirms public suspicions that
the Soeharto factor constitutes the main cause of the
unsatisfactory conduct of the Armed Forces in critical cases.

The disappointing conduct of the military tribunal in handling
the Trisakti case, the slow pace of the military police in
investigating the abductions of political activists and the great
hesitancy shown by the Military Police to gather data about the
role of organized groups in the riots of May 13 and May 14 -- all
these are political symptoms that make the public suspect
Soeharto is still pulling the strings in the current
administration.

This creates public fear concerning the possible comeback of
old political forces into our public life.

Can Wiranto and the Armed Forces dispel this public suspicion
and fear? Not if Wiranto and the Armed Forces continue to display
this ambivalent attitude.

The key question that the general has to answer is how to
express his personal respect and reverence toward former
president Soeharto without creating the impression of being
hesitant in his political commitment to the reform movement.

In the end it should never be forgotten that being commander
of the Indonesian Armed Forces carries a number of political
obligations which should in no way be compromised by personal
attachments to anybody, whoever that anybody might be.

The writer is an observer of social and cultural affairs.