JP/17/PALACE

JP/17/PALACE

Revitalization of palaces a threat to democracy

Sri Wahyuni
Contributor/Yogyakarta

A dialog on culture held recently during the Indonesia
Palaces Festival (FKN) IV in Yogyakarta agreed on the need to
make the palaces in the country the centers of culture.

Author of Bangsawan dan Kuasa (Noble Families and Power), AAGN
Ari Dwipayana, of Gadjah Mada University school of political and
social sciences, however, said that it could be a setback and a
threat to democracy. The following is an excerpt of the interview
with Sri Wahyuni of The Jakarta Post' about the issue.

How would you perceive a palace in today's politics of the
country?

The formal political power of a palace in Indonesia came to an
end since the enactment of Law No. 1/1957 on regional government,
which erased the existence of swapraja (autonomous)
government, i.e. palaces, such that they have functioned only in
the cultural domain ever since.

When a major, fundamental change in Indonesian politics
occurred in 1998, however, many of the palaces were starting to
look for new strategies (to regain their formal political power).

Individually, for example, members of the royal families are
seeking formal positions in either the legislative institutions
or the bureaucracy.

Institutionally, they are expanding their wilayah kerabat
(reach) by, for instance, awarding noble titles to the country's
prominent political figures.

In other words, they are revitalizing themselves, looking for
both political representation and institutionally strategic
positions in local politics.

In Yogyakarta, for example, an effort has also been made
through the strengthening of the special status of the region. In
Surakarta, Ternate, and Tidore, a similar approach has been made
through the idea of going back to the residency form of
government.

In other places, it is done through the degree of
representativeness of a sultanate in local politics. This is
indeed a setback for democracy.

Could you elaborate?

Democracy recognizes equality. No representation is made based
either on historical, gynecological, or traditional
considerations. Everyone is treated equally.

The involvement of a palace in modern politics, too, can
create congruence between the cultural and formal political
powers that will in turn make the powers too centralistic to
control.

A sultan who is also a governor, for example, is difficult to
control because he is also the representation of culture. As
such, his authority is often seen as sacred, exemplary and even a
manifestation of particular traditional or supernatural power.

When equality is no longer recognized, while at the same time
there is also a concentration of political and cultural powers,
it will be difficult for the substantive democracy to be
achieved.

That is why it is important that palaces must not consider
themselves the centers of culture, the centers of models. Culture
and tradition do not belong only to palaces. There are many
others that live in the community. Palaces are just parts of a
multifaceted culture.

What I am saying is that there is a phenomenon of
monopolization in the authority to interpret so-called culture,
which is often referred to as the identity of a region.

When people talk about customs and traditions they always
refer to that of palaces, and not that which was developed among
ethnical, more egalitarian communities, where equality was highly
recognized.

In other words, there has been an "aristocratization" of
culture and custom. This should be stopped because it is not
conducive at all for the process of democracy. Unfortunately, as
I see it, people seem to have accepted this phenomenon as
something natural.

Even among academics the same acceptance often exists.
Aristocracy seems to have been perceived as a solution for
democracy that many consider to have failed in providing a better
life for the community.

What do you think will stop it?

Civil society organizations should not just accept the idea
that going back to traditional values is the same as going back
to that of the palaces. Movements like the Alliance of Nusantara
Community (Aman) have to speak out loud that strengthening
traditional customs does not equate with a revival of feudalism
or aristocracy.

The government, similarly, should not facilitate only the
forums for the palaces to expose themselves but also those for
the other groups of community to show the varied traditions
living among them. Both the palaces and the rest of the community
must be given the same opportunity to develop their traditions
and culture as tourist attractions.

The democratic rule of the games should be developed as well
so as not to create possibilities for a hegemony or domination
from the palace actors in the local politics.

At a national level, related policies have to be formulated
under clear cultural politics. It should be clearly stated that
the culture to be developed is one that will not tolerate
aristocracy or feudalism.