'Good life' vs 'good governance'

'Good life' vs 'good governance'

Mochtar Buchori, Legislator, Jakarta

If you ask people down there what they need most at the
moment, good governance or good life, they would say "Good life!"

This was a statement of a Malaysian MP, made during his
participation in a two-day seminar in Bangkok, which discussed
politial uncertainties and challenges in Southeast Asia and
Japan. He based this statement on his experiences as a politician
who has been canvassing extensively three rural states in
Malaysia: Kedah, Kelantan, and Trengganu.

I was a bit shocked by this statement. People in Indonesia,
Thailand, or the Philippines, would say the same if confronted
with such a question. But I have always assumed that the words
"good governance" would have the same meaning and the same
political appeal to me and to people at the grass-root level.

Is a good life possible without good governance? And is it
sustainable in the long run without good governance? Further,
what does a "good life" mean to the people? Do the urban poor in
Jakarta attach the same meaning to this word as the rural poor in
Java or Central Kalimantan?

Do people understand the difference between "good governance"
and "good government"? Again, we might get different answers from
people living under different economic conditions, under
governments with different degrees of humaneness, and under
different political systems.

Questions regarding the relationship between a "good life" and
"good governance" look simple, but in real life situation, for
instance, it would not be easy for many to decide where they
would prefer to live: In a society where material comfort is
overabundant, but where opportunity for a dignified and creative
human life is rare, or in a society where physical gratification
is rather hard to get, but where freedom of expression and of
worship is completely guaranteed.

To make political communication effective, abstract concepts
must be translated into "grassroot political idioms".

There are significant differences between the political idiom
of the rural poor and that of the urban poor. Anyone who works
among them has a moral and intellectual duty to translate every
abstract concept into the political idioms of both groups. This
is the case if political leaders still care whether or not they,
and everything they stand for, are really understood by their
followers.

Being genuinely understood means that people accept their
leaders, and perceive them as persons who genuinely share their
concerns and aspirations. Followers would then look upon their
leaders as their role models. Being genuinely understood also
means that the public will not easily accuse political leaders of
committing economic, political, or moral abuse.

It is also politically unwise to force people to make a choice
between "good life" and "good governance". We want both a good
life and good governance for our people. The problem we are
facing is to make a good life accessible for the majority of our
people, and this must be achieved through good governance, and
sustained by good governance.

A "good life" is not a matter of "all-or-nothing". This is
also the case with "good governance". We must try each time to
make our society a little bit more humanely governed, more
prosperous, and socially more just.

We also must make people realize that our common ideal to have
both a good life and good governance will not and cannot be
achieved by simplifying our problem. We must reveal the truth
regarding the country's complexities, and that a genuine and
long-lasting solution will come only from hard work, prudence,
and honesty, sustained over a long period of time. We must
prepare our people for this hard life.

Our future looks bleak indeed, but not hopeless. We will be
able to come out of our present mess only if each of our
political leaders succeeds in marshaling the support of the
people. No politician would ever succeed in his or her
ideological battle without lasting support from followers.

The question is whether the support expressed is spontaneous
or mobilized, genuine or fake; and if genuine, whether it is
based on understanding or merely on fear and obedience.

So what do our political leaders really want from their
supporters? Genuine political support or mere obedience?