Home, foreign affairs: A cultural link?

By Ignas Kleden

JAKARTA (JP): Indonesian Foreign Affairs Minister Ali Alatas is perhaps one of the few who has the courage for self-criticism. According to his observation, most Indonesian diplomats lack professional qualifications in dealing with the people of other countries. One of their shortcomings, he cited, is their poor ability to debate.

Alatas's comment brought about a response from senior diplomat Anak Agung Gede Agung, who pointed out that the shortcoming was due mainly to their poor mastery of diplomatic languages (especially English), and their inability to interact socially or politically in the countries where they reside.

This article does not aim to look into the professional education of our diplomats, but rather to call our attention to another aspect implied in Alatas's statement. The question is whether the inability to engage professionally in a diplomatic debate should be attributed to diplomatic training and their technical proficiency in English or to the larger political culture and political behavior now prevalent in Indonesian politics?

For one thing, we can safely contend that the ability to debate is not simply a matter of technical training, but rather of cultural habit. If one is not used to debating, we cannot expect that suddenly because of one's job one is able to debate professionally.

The fact that one is used to or not used to debate is due to both psychological disposition and cultural circumstances. In the former case one is not familiar with debate because fighting forcefully for one's opinion is something which is not in line with one's personal preference or psychological inclinations. In the latter, however, one is not familiar with debate, because this is something not recommended or even not allowed by one's cultural values and norms.

Theoretically speaking, there are cultures in which debate and competition of ideas are highly esteemed because it becomes an opportunity to exercise one's ability to think logically, to react quickly and speak eloquently and intelligently. In other words, it is seen and treated as an intellectual exercise or public performance.

On the other hand, there are also cultural groups who do not like debate and prefer actions to words. From the former group we learn that to work is one thing, but to stand up and to speak up for one's work and achievement is another.

Politics as such is a job which, by definition, cannot be separated from talking. This is the case because politics has something to do with public life. To talk is also a necessity in political life because accountability becomes an inherent element, whereby everything pertaining to the public good should be contested publicly. Politicians are expected to speak clearly, to convey the message convincingly and argue intelligently.

In foreign affairs, all the above capacities are more important because the job of our diplomats abroad consists of two related tasks. On the one hand they have to introduce and promote Indonesian politics, while on the other hand they have to be able to argue against all misunderstanding and criticisms of Indonesian politics.

All this has to be done in foreign circumstances, in front of a foreign audience, using a foreign language, and confronting foreign way of thinking and foreign political outlook. Technical capacities are very much dependent upon the professional and diplomatic training provided by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Social abilities are mostly attributed to the individual and personal talents of our diplomats.

The question of political opposition still seems to be a very sensitive issue. It is believed to contradict the political culture of Indonesia, which is derived from national culture and kepribadian bangsa, or national personality.

Historically speaking, this view originated in the Old Order regime during the reign of President Sukarno and gained a new relevance at the beginning of the New Order in mid-1960s when political stability was so important for the implementation and the continuation of economic development. Now that economic development is already well settled, it is time to rethink the possibility of political opposition within the context of Indonesian culture.

The necessity of political opposition poses a double challenge. Domestically, the capacity for consensus building will not be adequate if it is not supported by the equally important capacity for conflict management. If we may assume (which is still very debatable) that political opposition is something alien in Indonesian culture, we can say that conflict is always present.

Poverty, for example, can engender conflict because the scarcity of resources may lead to the struggle for survival. Conversely, wealth may produce conflict because national income is not yet distributed fairly.

In a way, political opposition is only a formalization of conflict, be it political, economic, social or cultural in nature. All should have a political opportunity to speak up and search for politically acceptable solutions.

Conflicts cannot be continuously repressed without becoming detrimental to social integration. Conflicts are there to be solved, and they can only be solved if they are discernible and allowed to appear.

The traditional view which looks at conflict as something deviant or inappropriate should be replaced by another view which treats conflict as something very human and something which belongs to the process of self-realization. To ignore conflicts will not result in their disappearance, and to repress them time and again will weaken the base of social integration.

Internationally, the question of opposition gains a new relevance if it is related to the qualifications of our diplomats abroad. The weakness pointed out by Minister Alatas can be discussed in this connection. Debate is the exchange of arguments backed up by supporting ideas formulated in comprehensible propositions.

To this extent the ability for debate is a product of a political climate where opposing political positions are allowed and where differences of opinion are respected as an expression of intellectual autonomy and political intelligence.

This is only possible if politics is prevented from being personalized, whereby the political position one chooses is treated as identical to one's personality.

We can never overemphasize that politics is a public sphere. Of course we can privately tell our friends or acquaintances in power of their wrongdoings, but this is by no means a political act. It becomes a political act if this reminder or warning is done publicly in order to further public learning, political education and political control.

The quality of political leadership is much more than mere individual or personal qualities. We can hope but we must not assume and expect that the moral qualification of a political leader is much better than that of the common citizens. This is not a necessary prerequisite. The quality of political leadership is not personal virtue but the product of the political intervention of one's constituents as well as the result of social control.

The philosophical assumption of democracy is certainly not the moral superiority of political leaders but precisely the corrigibility of human fallibility through control. People get the government they deserve and citizens get the leadership they make themselves.

To come back to the issue of Indonesian diplomats abroad, we cannot expect our diplomats to suddenly behave totally differently from their daily habits in domestic political affairs. If political opposition is not allowed, and if political criticism is seen as something unnecessary, there will be very little opportunity for our politicians to train their argumentative skills.

We are often told officially that Indonesian foreign politics reflects and should reflect Indonesian internal politics. In the same vein, political performance in international fora reflects (though it should not) the political culture at home.

The writer is a sociologist working with the Jakarta-based SPES Foundation Research Center.