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.