Local politicians unclear about ethics, values

Local politicians unclear about ethics, values

J. Soedjati Djiwandono, Political Analyst, Jakarta

Indonesian politics is always full of confusion and
misunderstanding, even, or perhaps especially, among politicians.
What a contrast. Under Soeharto we were taught to be proud of our
"Indonesian style" and "Indonesian tradition" of democracy, even
if in reality we had neither.

Today, our confusion, or "misunderstanding", is seldom
admitted by politicians. The confusion is either explained away
by 32 years of experience under the authoritarian regime of
Soeharto's "Pancasila democracy". I would say almost 40 years,
because authoritarianism here began with Sukarno's "guided
democracy". Or it is considered a consequence of our "muddling
through" the process of democracy.

The main reason, however, has been a consequence of
politicians' undue concern over short-term personal and sectarian
interests, which account for their reluctance to learn from their
own past mistakes and from the experiences of other more
democratically advanced nations.

And their acquaintance with "Pancasila morality" during the
era of Soeharto's indoctrination has contributed to their
confusion about "morality", "ethics", and "etiquette", and how
these concepts relate to one another.

This is not to suggest that there is no ethics at all in
Indonesian politics. It does suggest, however, that the moral and
ethical values among Indonesian politicians are, again, either
vague or turned upside down. Once under president Abdurrahman
Wahid (Gus Dur), a coordinating minister resigned from the
cabinet -- unprecedented since Soeharto's time -- on the grounds
that the cabinet was about to undergo a reshuffle, and his
resignation was meant to pave the way for the setting up of a new
cabinet by the president. He wanted, he said, to adhere to proper
"political ethics."

He forgot -- or did not understand -- that ministers of an
outgoing cabinet are expected to carry on with their work, though
they are not supposed to make vital decisions. Or else there
would be a vacuum, and one can imagine the kind of vacuum of
power in the country if all the members of an outgoing cabinet
should withdraw simultaneously! He probably thought, and many did
think, that he was a hero by doing that.

In fact, for the right reason, it would have been a good
precedent, for under Soeharto no cabinet minister had ever
resigned for whatever reason. But that particular coordinating
minister did it for the wrong reason at the wrong time.

It is not accurate to say that Indonesians have no sense of
shame. What is wrong with many Indonesians is that in their
understanding of ethics in politics, their values are turned
upside down. They tend to be ashamed of something they should be
proud of, and to be proud of something should be ashamed of.

Under Soeharto, Indonesians were taught to be proud of the
fact that our "Indonesian" political system did not uphold the
principle of a separation of powers (trias politica), and thus it
had no system of checks and balances, something that in fact we
should be ashamed of, for it would inevitably lead to absolute
power. Cabinet ministers were not encouraged to resign as an
expression of responsibility for some mishap under their
departments. To do so would be regarded as shirking their
responsibilities. Hence the habit of seeking a scapegoat instead.

Indeed, that habit has a lot to do with the way children, from
their early years, were educated, perhaps particularly in
Javanese families. That kind of education of young children
continues even today, in which toddlers are never taught to be
responsible for the smallest accidents that befall them. They
must instead find fault with somebody or something else. Whenever
a child trips over a small table, adults comfort the crying
youngster by assuring that it is the table that is "naughty",
rather than blame the child for being careless.

Another case concerns Central Bank Governor Syahril Sabirin.
Since Gus Dur became President, he has been declared a suspect in
a banking scandal. Yet, now that the Central Bank -- the Bank of
Indonesia -- has been made an independent institution outside the
Cabinet, he has never indicated his intention to resign,
maintaining that his position as governor of the central bank was
dependent on the legislature (DPR). And most probably to serve
its own interest, neither has the DPR ever indicated its
intention to relieve him from office.

Akbar Tandjung, DPR Speaker and chairman of the Golkar Party,
has also been declared a suspect in a financial scandal -- the
"Buloggate II" (Buloggate I related to president Gus Dur).

Yet despite widespread demand and pressure, not only from
certain political parties but also many in society, and clearly
with no sense of shame, the poker-faced Akbar refuses to step
down, stating that based on the presumption of innocence, being a
suspect does not mean he is proven guilty. He is certainly right
on that score. He simply has no sense of morality or ethics.

And the Golkar Party under his leadership has continued to
support him, saying that there are no rules or regulations that
being a suspect would prevent an official from continuing to
occupy his post. These politicians simply miss the point. A code
of ethics does not necessarily take the form of written rules.
Here lies the importance of the development of conventions.

A no less serious case concerns Minister of Transportation
Agum Gumelar. In the past year alone, there have been almost a
dozen train accidents resulting in the loss of dozens of human
lives and the suffering of many wounded people, not to mention
material and financial losses. Yet the minister has refused to
step down, retorting that the demands for his resignation should
be directed to those people who are "operators", not people like
him who are among "regulators".

Which one was more responsible, the "regulator", who makes
decisions, or the "operator" who is supposed to carry out the
regulator's decisions or regulations? It is such simple logic!
Unfortunately none of those journalists present raised such a
simple question.

He also said, "I am a cabinet minister under the authority of
the President. If I should resign, but the President does not
concur, what should I do?" Interestingly, again, no one asked: 1.
whether the minister had actually tendered his resignation to the
President. 2. whether the President had actually turned down his
resignation. Those would have been important questions, for the
minister used "conditional sentences", not statements of facts!

Indeed, there are other cases, some of which relate to
President Megawati Soekarnoputri herself. The few cases examined
here, however, should suffice to show how little respect
Indonesian politicians hold for political ethics.