Genuine dialog stems from mutual trust

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): Gen. Wiranto's offer of dialog with university students to ease existing political tensions seems to have hit a snag. No single group of students believes that it is possible at this moment in time to hold an honest and sincere dialog with the Armed Forces. Their distrust and suspicion of the Armed Forces and the entire government apparatus is so deeply entrenched that it seems impossible to surmount.

This is an unhealthy situation, and very worrying. So much so that Gen. (ret) Rudini, formerly the minister of home affairs and Army chief of staff, felt obliged to advise students to accept the offer. He assured the students that Gen. Wiranto was serious about the offer and that the proposed dialog was not meant to stifle or restrict their freedom of expression, but that it was sincerely intended to accommodate their political aspirations.

On another occasion, Lt. Gen. Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, Armed Forces Chief of Sociopolitical Affairs, expressed regret that students had rejected the offer. He looked upon this snub as a manifestation of student antipathy toward the Armed Forces. He assured students that the Armed Forces did not have any bad intentions or hidden agenda behind the invitation. He too argued that the proposed dialog was an attempt to include student views in the political decision making process, not to dampen their voice.

Will these assurances change student attitudes and perceptions of the generals, the Armed Forces and the government?

I am afraid not. As far as I can see, the rejection has been born out of a deep distrust of the government and the Armed Forces, who are the main instrument of state power. This distrust has not just come out of nowhere. It has emerged in reaction to the continuous use of the language of power and violence by the government and the Armed Forces over many years. It is also a reaction to the government's tendency to win every argument, even if it has to resort to dirty tactics, absurd logic, and false information.

Is it surprising that this kind of situation has created distrust, suspicion and skepticism among university students and academics?

Not in my opinion. Anyone who has been trained to respect facts and rational argument will be repulsed by falsifying of facts, fabrication of evidence, and the use of rampaging reason to force an opinion upon others.

The academic community, including students, and the government bureaucracy, including the Armed Forces, have been using two different languages. The two have never before met on a level playing field. How can academics and students be expected to suddenly drop their suspicions and skepticism, and come to believe that they will be treated as equals in the proposed dialog?

True dialog can only be conducted between individuals or groups of individuals who trust each other. No amount of assurance can bring about genuine dialog if trust or confidence is lacking. Without mutual trust, what will ensue is either a monolog or a mere display of formal politeness. Such an encounter will not contribute anything toward solving the problems that exist in real life.

Confidence building is thus a prerequisite to a true dialog. In my opinion, it is the responsibility of the Armed Forces to initiate the process of building confidence. This will not be easy because statements made by Prof. Wiranto Arismunandar, the new Minister of Education and Culture, have deepened student distrust of the government. He said on one occasion that demonstrating students were just "amateur politicians", while those taking part in hunger strikes should realize that "they are not Mahatma Gandhi".

He has also demanded that students offer "concrete ideas" for solving existing problems, instead of just criticizing the government.

From newspaper reports it was evident that students were very upset, felt belittled by these remarks and thought the minister was saying to the world that protesting students were just an insignificant nuisance.

This enraged them because they feel themselves to be very significant. They plunged into these political demonstrations not to become "amateur politicians, but because "professional politicians" had failed to acknowledge the political aspirations flourishing in society.

One academic reacted rather cynically to the minister's suggestion that students offer "concrete ideas", arguing that this could not be so, since by definition an idea is an abstract concept. Only after an idea has been put into practice does it become real or concrete.

Why should responsibility for finding solutions fall to students? That is the government's job. The government has created all these problems by making unscrupulous moves which they knew would have unpleasant consequences.

This argument and counter-argument can be extended ad infinitum. But such an exercise will not improve the frosty situation or solve anything. If we are genuinely determined to find a lasting solution, then a genuine dialog to exchange ideas for solving our problems collectively is imperative. To make this happen, confidence building must first take place.

Francis Bacon said that confidence building is the act of "opening the heart", which can be done only with a "true friend, to whom you may impart griefs, joys, fears, hopes, suspicions, counsels, and whatsoever lieth upon the heart to oppress it."

Can the Armed Forces become a "true friend" to the students? And can the students in time accept the Armed Forces as such?

I think the real question is "How to do this?", not "Can this be done?"

The writer is an observer of social and cultural affairs.