Learning to listen to other people

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.