Indonesia's political elite has no statesmanship

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): Political education has been a "traditional" out-of-school activity among Indonesian intellectuals. Independent discussions about politics among students, from junior high school up to university, has been a common feature of nonformal political education.

During the Japanese occupation this kind of activity was done secretively, and limited to selected students. One of the leaders who provided this kind of political education during this era was the late former vice president Mohammad Hatta.

After the proclamation of independence in August 1945, political education became an open activity. During the days of Guided Democracy and for much of the New Order era, the concept of political education was twisted, and what eventually emerged was political indoctrination. Today, uncorrupted political education is a prerequisite for guiding our current reform movement along a meaningful course.

Who needs political education, and what kind of political education is required?

Prior to the June elections, most people thought it was primarily people at the grassroots level who needed political education. This notion sprang from the observation that most Indonesians, particularly those at the grassroots, determined their support for political parties on the basis of their like or dislike of political leaders.

It is only among the politically informed that affiliation to political parties is decided by ideological considerations. A case in point is the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan). Most people have flocked to this party not because they really understand what democracy is, but primarily because they love Megawati Soekarnoputri, the party's chairwoman.

This is a form of political primordialism, a condition which is too primitive to serve as the basis of political organization in a modern democratic society. Loyalty to personalities should not be the only basis for attracting members to a political organization, and driving them toward goals that may be too novel and alien for most of them.

In addition, or in its stead, loyalty to party ideals or party ideology should be gradually nourished. It is this kind of political education that in the recent past was thought an urgent matter in our society.

Events during and after the June elections, however, have shown that it is our political elite who most urgently need political education. At the grassroots level, people demonstrated quite convincingly they understood the historic meaning of the general election. They knew how to behave to ensure their wishes for a new society with a new political climate would be duly noted by the entire nation and the world, and would not be betrayed by political power brokers and horse traders.

They played their part in the elections process quite admirably, and the elections proceeded without serious incident.

It is at the level of the political elite that the sense of responsibility is lacking. The constant bickering among members of the General Elections Commission and the refusal of 27 commission members to endorse the results of the elections are undeniable evidence of their lack of understanding of their proper function at our current stage of political development.

In addition, the actions of the commission show the members of our political elite lack the sincerity and responsibility to carry out their political mission. If they understood that in a democratic society the function of politics was to continuously improve the practice of governance, they would not use the political power entrusted to them to obstruct the process of forming a legitimate government.

If they had learned that "Public sentiment is to public officers what water is to the wheel of the mill" -- to borrow the phrase of Henry Ward Beecher -- they would not blatantly ignore the public passion for a new and respectable government.

But apparently these political leaders do not know what the function of politics is. Nor do they seem to possess the slightest intention of respecting current public sentiment.

What the commission eventually did was to show their true and ugly political inclinations, which is -- to paraphrase Henry Adams -- to use politics as a vehicle for the systematic organization of hatred.

It is these kind of politicians who most urgently need political education. It does not mean that people at the grass roots level do not need political education.

What it means is that providing political education for ordinary citizens is not as urgent as providing this same education for political leaders. This is because in the end, it is the political leaders who will have to politically educate ordinary citizens. It would be completely irresponsible to leave the political education of ordinary citizens in the hands of corrupt political leaders.

What is the proper course of such political education, what should be the format and who should carry it out?

I believe political education of this kind must cover two aspects: Intellectual and moral. The ingredients of the intellectual aspect must, in my opinion, cover the following points: The function of politics in democratic countries, the political history of the country, the cultural basis of the various political systems that have existed in the country and the political systems that will most likely emerge in the future.

Again in my opinion, the moral aspect must emphasize political ethics, the moral implications of the principles of good governance and value systems inherent in a democratic political system.

What I would like to emphasize here is that responsible political leadership requires comprehensive knowledge of the condition of the country and its people, and commitment to an agreed upon political course. It is precisely these two things that certain members of our political elite are lacking.

Are our political leaders willing to attend lectures about such issues? I don't think so. Thus the only format for this kind of political education is nonformal: Discussions, dialogs, workshops and structured seminars for small groups.

Who will be the educators? In the first place, they should not be referred to as "educators". They will in effect be facilitators who will act as discussion leaders, partners in dialogs, leaders of workshops and leaders, consultants, rapporteurs and participants of seminars.

Will such political education ever take place in our society?

I think so. If we genuinely long for a fundamental change in our political culture, events of this sort will eventually take place. In the end we should not forget that, as Joss Ackland, a British actor and dramatist, said recently, success in any endeavor depends on ambition, luck and determination.

Soeharto's historic resignation on May 21, 1998 is, in a way, our national luck. Do we have the necessary ambition and determination to achieve our national dream? I think we do.

The writer is an observer of social and cultural affairs.