Learning to listen to other people

By Mudji Sutrisno

JAKARTA (JP): In the process of becoming Indonesia a process of pathos-based internalization of the affection to become Indonesia is intertwined with a systemically rational process of translating this desire into reality in the form of the state of the Republic of Indonesia, a law-based and democratic country.

Unless they are closely scrutinized, these two processes will only make it difficult for rational analyses to find a solution to the threats of disintegration. Likewise, if they are viewed only normatively as processes in which the spirit of affective unity is glued together, they will fail to properly respond to the threats of disintegration.

Basing himself on Otto Bauer, young Soekarno attempted to find an answer to the question of being Indonesia by acutely explaining that it was an affective process of forging national unity because of a common fate and plight shared under colonialism. He then confirmed this by referring to Ernest Renan's statement that the process of becoming a nation is the process of a common desire to unite ("le desir d'etre ensemble")

This fervent affective process, which served as the spirit in the struggle for liberation, was historically crystallized as a desire to cement the wealth of diversity in the Youth Pledge of having 'One Land, One Language and One Nation -- Indonesia'.

In the same dynamic, a rational ordering of society in the pursuit of freedom was initiated and this desire for freedom was realized in a system of a law-based state, and not a power state or a democratic state (where kings or masters hold sovereignty).

This conscious process of pristine and sincere conscience has found its rational crystallization in the formulation of the aspiration of a society characterized by unity (Soekarno), by justice and civilization (Sutan Sjahrir), by people's sovereignty (Mohammad Hatta) and by evenly distributed prosperity (Hatta) and also by mutual respect for the humanity inherent in plurality (founding fathers of the Republic of Indonesia) as well as a common desire to stick together as a religious nation.

It is this historical formulation, which is at the same time also the crystallization of affective and rational processes, that has been engraved in gold letters in the preamble of our constitution, the Constitution of 1945.

Therefore when crises hit our unity as a nation, in which the gluing factor is affection, and the unity as a state, in which the cohesion is produced by rationality (where control over arbitrary use of power is firmly exercised through a fair and honest judiciary and the division of power into the legislative, the judicial and the executive), attention must be modestly paid to the root cause of the crises. These causes must also be modestly observed and handled.

The real historical problem in this context is as follows:

First, in the beginning a nation characterized by plurality and endowed with rich agricultural produce, mineral resources and natural gas was resolved, with a burning spirit, to unite as a free nation. Free to be what? The determination is to bring into reality evenly distributed prosperity and justice in a rational system of a law-based state with sovereignty in the hands of the people (democracy).

However, this nation, characterized by its plurality, is very much disappointed by the avarice of the centers of power, as shown in their practices of corruption, injustice and the political culture of violence in eliminating the criticism of unity and stability. As a result, there is a crisis of the glue of affection as manifested in a wish for disintegration considering that the center is greedy and the regions enjoy only a small portion of their wealth. Irian Jaya, East Kalimantan and Aceh, for example, are three provinces generating considerable foreign exchange but they receive only Rp 278 billion (US$34.7 million), Rp 291 billion and Rp 153 billion, respectively, from their income of respectively Rp 6.5 trillion ($812.5million), Rp 27.43 trillion and Rp 33 trillion (1998/99 regional budget of revenue and expenditure (Kompas Sept. 6, 16 and 18, 1998).

The solution to these crises of affection and confidence must be found in the legal system of regional autonomy in its relationship with the center so that legally and formally equity in justice may be translated into reality. It is understandable why there is a strong demand for the establishment of a federal state. We are now paying dearly for the avarice, injustice and inequity in our system of statehood.

Second, mutual accusation that has been politicized in sentiments related to religion, ethnic groups and the rich-poor gap is heavily politically loaded in ways that can easily break the framework of our national cohesion.

Why? In 30 years people have been dehumanized and have always been kept in ignorance under the floating mass political system. Over this period students have been segregated from the people under the politics of state's hegemony and domination.

Different religions and plurality have been subjected to the regulation of the politics of control as manifested in supervised and controlled organization, starting from a critical attitude down to ideas, which are put under the grip of the politics of violence and state domination.

As a result, mutual suspicion has found its fertile soil as one group is always pitted against another so that at a certain point one group will be enraged and highly suspicious, feeling that they are always fooled and controlled by another group.

Things will worsen as some groups will feel that as they live in poverty they are always marginalized and made sacrificial cows. These people will feel that they are always defeated and at the same time they witness the widening gap between them and the rich, who will only get richer.

Their conclusion is that the poor will get poorer while the rich will get richer and more powerful as they are going deeper and deeper into collusive acts. This condition will further deteriorate as in this transitional situation, where the crisis of confidence prevails, everybody is hit by the crisis and they are all frustrated as the prices of daily needs keep on sky- rocketing.

So, in facing the big crisis which is now gripping Indonesia, where must we start to get out of this difficulty with a flicker of optimism as our asset?

Allow me to borrow the metaphor of a table cloth that Y.B. Mangunwijaya has used to describe the crisis and stretch its use further to answer the above question.

Our table cloth -- the metaphor of our condition -- may be left in its torn condition on the table. It may remain dirty because of what has been done by ourselves. Or, this table cloth may be cleaned first and then we lift it off the table from one side, with the result that the other sides will also be lifted. If you lift not only the four corner points of the table cloth but also many more points on the surface of the cloth, then the table cloth can slowly be raised.

The essence is if in our plurality we modestly wish to learn to repent, resist accusing one another and refuse to be exploited or politicized in the interest of the ego itself, then we may have a pre-condition to get out of this crisis in a civilized cultural process.

Then each of us should give our contribution in accordance with our own functional portion for the sake of our common prosperity.

This means that intellectuals with their ideas and analysis will try to repair the structure and establish a more democratic system with better legal certainty. The military will be responsible again for the security of society. The bureaucrats will improve their public services. Those in the judiciary will really eliminate corruption, collusion and nepotism. Religious people will inspire the morality of nationhood and statehood.

Meanwhile, each member of the community will show solidarity to one another and will in a civilized manner help bridge the gap between the ignorant and the intelligent and between the rich and the poor, in a movement of humanity that overleaps ethnicity, religion and the division of the community into groups for the sake of a community struggle characterized by transparency, civilization, plurality, justice and mutual respect to fellow countrymen.

All this will need a radical change in the paradigm of mentality, namely the state of being Indonesia that will, with all modesty, be ready to lend ears to the popular voice and that refrains from being overbearing as rulers.

We also need to have the paradigm of mentality that shows the modest readiness to learn to contribute our own portion for the sake of the establishment of the state of being Indonesia characterized by civilization, transparency, mutual respect and plurality and that firmly rejects the politics of violence, the politics of pitting one religion against another, especially the politics of "counterism" that split young people and students.

Are we willing to learn to break the shackles of mutual suspicion by modestly resorting to our new awareness to get out of this crisis?

The model or paradigm of banning and splitting can only prove to us that we earnestly need the state of being Indonesia that indicates the wish to jointly learn to listen to the popular voice and then sincerely put it in a discourse in the interest of popular sovereignty.

Afterwards we provide the structure of just prosperity to achieve all this before our table cloth is torn by conflicts of interest and power that will only bring misery to all of us.

The writer is a lecturer at the Driyarkara School of Philosophy, Jakarta.

Window: As a result, mutual suspicion has found its fertile soil as one group is always pitted against another so that at a certain point one group will be enraged and highly suspicious, feeling that they are always fooled and controlled by another group.