Home, foreign affairs: A cultural link?
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.