Language democratization a must

Language democratization a must

By A. Chaedar Alwasilah

JAKARTA (JP): Since Soeharto's downfall people have been
noisily calling for democratization in all walks of life.
Protesters now enjoy freedom of speech, which was absent for the
last three decades in the country. There is at the moment a kind
of euphoria that leads to communication chaos in our political
and social discourse. Many now abuse the magic word "reformasi"
as an excuse for protesting almost anything. In this case the
word reformasi has been defined differently by different people.
As far as communication is concerned this phenomenon is alarming,
because successful communication presupposes agreed referents, or
meanings, of the words used.

In the last three decades our political discourse has been
characterized by an excessive use of political jargon
intentionally generated by bureaucrats as a symbol of their power
and domination. The jargon is then faithfully repeated by lower-
rank bureaucrats as part of their political allegiance, thus
maintaining the status quo of the bureaucracy as a whole.
Further, the jargon is publicized by the mass media at no cost at
all since the bureaucrats are virtually the source of all news.
This being the case, people at the grassroots level jump onto the
linguistic bandwagon. The jargon is interpreted and used
differently by different participants in communication. The
majority of them do not realize that they are being
linguistically victimized by the regime.

As early as 1982 Evert Vedung believed that manipulation of
language occurs in a political context in all countries, but that
dictatorships tend to be particularly systematic in these
machinations. The Javanese phrases mikul duwur mendem jero
(respect the living and honor the dead) and lengser keprabon
madeg pandito (to abdicate and become a sage) for example, thanks
to systematic top-down bureaucratic machinations, are already an
inseparable part of our political discourse nowadays. Media
Karya, a monthly Golkar-sponsored magazine, periodically
published a Kamus Kader (cadre dictionary) section to propagate
such political jargon. These examples substantiate the hypothesis
that language is a medium of domination and power.

Inherent in political reform is linguistic reform vis-a-vis a
change in manipulating the language. There is collective
awareness among the people that the Soeharto regime has
unilaterally imposed their own interpretations of the state
ideology Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution, as indoctrinated
through the state-sponsored Pancasila Propagation Programs,
popularly called P4, for college freshmen and newly recruited
civil servants. There was virtually no room for counter
interpretation and criticism. Staunch critics took the risk of
being arrested under the Subversion Law.

Linguistic reform refers to collective efforts by all the
people, including government officials, to use the language as
the medium of social and political communication in natural and
democratic ways. Effective and natural communication meets the
following criteria: first, both parties as interlocutors stand
relatively the same chance of expressing ideas. When government
officials do not listen to their critics, or consider them as a
threat to their status quo, communication is not natural. The
government unilaterally imposed its views and there was no
negotiation. Our political discourse has been characterized by a
communication imbalance between the executive and the legislative
bodies. This imbalance reflects relationships of unequal power.

Second, both parties as communicators use the same code or
language for interaction. It is common that government officials
at the lower levels of bureaucracy tend to employ political
jargon as their subordinates do. The jargon is often contracted
in the form of acronyms such as kelompencapir, kukesra,
gentamasekdas, sadarkum, and so on and so forth. Acronyms
naturally simplify the concept they refer to, but when they are
overly used the real message is corrupted, or at least, some of
the message is missing.

Besides the acronyms, political discourse is also
characterized by the use of euphemism, which is "telling it like
it is not". When used by bureaucrats, it hides the essence of the
issue, and at worst it is deliberately aimed at avoiding public
responsibility. Consequently, the people become less sensitive or
indifferent to social problems. Instead of saying kelaparan, for
instance, government officials are apt to use the phrase rawan
pangan, which is semantically the same, namely hunger.
Pragmatically the two expressions carry dissimilar social
meanings.

Our research on bureaucrats's political language publicized by
the Kompas and Republika dailies during the period between March
and September 1997 shows that 82.44 percent of political jargon
is euphemistic. This is deliberately employed to insinuate. This
phenomenon suggests that government policy is subject to multiple
interpretations, thus indicating no certainty and certitude in
politics.

Third, for communicating with bureaucrats people should be
empowered to utilize the linguistic resources available. Speech,
writing, poetry reading, stage performances, etc. should be
perceived as media of natural communication. Freedom of speech,
press and arts are basic for human beings, and for cultivating
democracy. Political reform should be enhanced by language
democratization. This suggests that there must be a revolution in
the outlook of language as a medium of politics and social
interaction. Bureaucrats should realize that overuse of political
jargon and euphemism pollutes the truth and honesty of the
message and confuses the people at the grassroots level.

All the account described above reminds us of the importance
of language education as an inseparable part of political
education. Language not only reflects people's thoughts, but also
shapes their thoughts. Euphemistic language as used by
bureaucrats and popularized by the mass media, to a certain
extent, makes citizens less critical beings. Political jargon to
a certain extent shapes citizens' minds and the ways of political
life. To ensure effective and democratic communication, the
bureaucrats and the people should have common understanding of
the language used. The mass media should play the role of
mouthpiece of the people at the grassroots level. Their opinions,
concerns and hopes are worthwhile and should be reported.

Language education should be tailored to make citizens
critical of both political jargon coined by politicians and
language in general. It should enable them to tell the difference
between semantics and efficiency, to uncover the hidden truth,
and to distinguish facts from opinions, hypotheses from premises,
and particulars from universals. Political education is, as a
matter of necessity, language education. Language and political
education underscores language democratization as a revolution of
understanding language as a medium, practice and representation
of power. David Green (1987) asserts that the history of
political language is a history of struggles to shape the
publicly accepted meanings of these key terms.

The writer is a lecturer at Bandung Teachers Training
Institute.