Honest dialog needed to build common vision

Honest dialog needed to build common vision

The year 1997 will soon come to an end. Political scientist J.
Soedjati Djiwandono reflects upon the year's events and upon what
is urgently needed for the future.

JAKARTA (JP): The whole world is anticipating the end of 1997
and the new year. But in this country, we have more reason than
most to be anxious. In the words of Adam Schwartz, in this decade
of the 1990s, we have remained a "nation in waiting". And more
than the rest of the world, this is, for us, the most painful
part of the wait.

We are waiting for a change in the political scene. The same
political system has been in power for over three decades, a
record surpassed only by Cuba's President Fidel Castro. The
political system is not functioning fully and properly. There is
a growing tendency toward a concentration of power in the hands
of the government's executive branch and by contrast, a
continuous weakening of the representative bodies' power -- one
of whose main functions is to exercise control over the executive
branch.

Indeed, one would wonder, especially in light of what has
always appeared to be the executive branch's dominant role in the
People's Consultative Assembly's (MPR) steering committee,
whether the President is really mandated by the MPR or the other
way around. Hence, the increasing tendency toward power abuse at
all levels, resulting in growing injustice in various forms.

There are increasing demands for greater public participation,
greater freedoms of expression and association, an effective
mechanism of control, judicial review, an antitrust or
antimonopoly law, and a presidential term limitation -- in other
words, for greater democracy and justice.

However, we can be sure of only one thing: there will be a
change of national leadership. This is as sure as the sun rises
in the east, for nobody is immortal.

Nevertheless, unless the present national leader should step
down of his own will, which is highly improbable, the rest will
remain uncertain. No less uncertain is whether a change in
national leadership would result in political reform.

Beyond the widespread demands for change, however, there is,
as yet, to be a common understanding nationwide as to what is
meant by political reform. In what direction and what aspects of
the political system does reform need to take place. Such a
common understanding is absolutely necessary, particularly among
the country's different religious communities, whose relations
have continued to be marked by mutual prejudice, suspicion,
distrust and misunderstanding.

Social and political development in the past few years has
clearly demonstrated that Indonesian society has been torn and
beset by sectarian interests, particularly in racial and
religious terms.

The need, therefore, would be for an open and honest dialog
between leaders and members of religious communities, to develop
a common vision of a desirable society, toward which political
change could be geared.

This is of great significance and urgency, particularly among
younger generations. It is to these generations that the future
belongs. And it is today's young generation that will face the
challenge of political reform.

What kind of society do they want for the future? If it is to
be a pluralistic society, then what kind of pluralism -- static
or dynamic? Is it to be one in which the majority should have
privileges, or one with equality and justice for all, with free
movement of information, ideas and people? Do they have a common
understanding of the Indonesian concept of nationhood, and thus,
of national unity with all its implications?

What kind of democracy should be strived for? What about the
future role of the military? How would it understand human
rights? Above all, how would it understand the role of religion
in its future society, in a state based on the Pancasila ideology
as embodied in the 1945 Constitution, supposedly the primary
source of the state's laws?

Clearly, such dialog would need to take place over a long and
arduous process and it would be fruitful only if marked by
openness, honesty, humility, patience and goodwill on the part of
all those involved.

Indeed, while not much can be done under the present
circumstances, such a dialog that developed a common vision of
the future -- of a post-sectarian society -- should be the mark
of our time, or else we may well be in for another deep political
crisis. This would be costly, and perhaps delay indefinitely
much-needed reform.