'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?