Measuring progress a problem of methodology or conscience?

Measuring progress a problem of methodology or conscience?

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): Our competitor in the global race toward economic welfare is not our past, but other countries, including our neighbors.

In this competitive situation it is imperative that we have a realistic picture concerning our capability to compete. The right way to measure this is not to compare our achievements against our past, but against present situations in other countries.

For this purpose we must conduct cross-country comparative studies, and not historical evaluation of our present achievements.

This was one of the strong statements voiced by an economist at a recent colloquium organized by the Foundation for National Brotherhood.

Many other equally strong statements were expressed by panelists on the political and cultural panels.

On the political panel, forceful statements were exchanged between "the old guard" and the "new guard" in evaluating our present political system.

Whereas the "old guard" maintained that our present political system is good, solid and healthy, the "new guard" argued that it is feudalistic, enabling those in power to behave like royalty.

Whereas the "old guard" held the view that because of the present healthy political system we have been able to carry out five general elections successfully, the "new guard" pointed out that all unfair practices during our past general elections were made possible by a political system which gives unlimited power to the executive branch.

Whereas the "old guard" argued that due to the present healthy political system the government has enjoyed popular support, the "new guard" countered by saying that because our present political system is so inept we have been unable to check and control governance which has created many social ills.

A good political system, so the "new guard" argued, is one which is capable of preventing fraud and rigging in every election, of controlling government behavior at all levels of public administration, and of replacing a corrupt bureaucracy with a clean one.

Since none of these requirements have been met, it is plainly wrong and deceiving to call our present political system healthy and solid.

The cultural panel debated the cultural origin of our current social ills.

Here again, an unmistakable difference was apparent between the language used by "the old guard" and that used by "the new guard".

Whereas the "old guard" used expressions like "information storm", "cultural intrusion" and "cultural competition", the "new guard" referred to the same phenomena as "information-rich society", "cultural exchange" and "cultural encounter".

The amazing thing about this colloquium is that in spite of these initial differences, the entire event proceeded in a very amiable and earnest manner. Open-mindedness and a common abhorrence for practices that have caused present injustices enabled the two sides to overcome their differences, and move toward a common perception.

One moderator brought the two sides closer to each other by using "language control".

He urged the panelists and the participants to drop the krama inggil language (the super-polite level within the Javanese language) during the discourse, and use as much as possible the ngoko language (the plain or egalitarian level within the Javanese language) instead.

In his opinion, the super-polite language would just bring about mutual misunderstanding and confusion, because it uses so many euphemisms, figurative expressions and metaphors.

The excessive use of these linguistic refinements makes it impossible for anyone to speak clearly and forthrightly.

If we use the egalitarian language, the moderator argued, there would be no trouble expressing ourselves as candidly as we want to. We will not be burdened by considerations of politeness.

On the basis of this reasoning, this particular moderator immediately transformed any "polite expression" into plain language.

He skillfully paraphrased politically correct expressions to make them politically clear statements. This moderating technique brought about some shock, mental pain and embarrassment, but in the end it created a clear discussion among the panelists, and a clear understanding of the problems and issues being discussed.

Was there any compelling reason for the participants in this colloquium to conduct the discussions in such a forceful and blunt way?

I do not know. My guess is that the tone was set by Wahono, the House Speaker, who delivered the keynote address in the opening ceremony.

Everyone admired his explicitness, and his determination to correct the various injustices and imbalances that exist today in our society. It is quite possible that, inspired by this address, every participant became determined to tell it as it is.

Whatever the reason, the most important achievement was that a common understanding was reached concerning the nature of our present situation, and the basic corrective measures that must be taken to save our collective future.

The participants unanimously agreed that Indonesian society is basically still a feudal society, and that the prevailing arrogance in our society stems from the feudal character of our rigidly stratified society.

Within this highly stratified society, the higher strata does not have enough respect for the lower strata, and the people in the lower strata do not feel that they have the right to judge and correct the public behavior of the people above them.

Our present inability to exert effective control towards governmental actions is just another expression of this feudalistic mentality.

A very lively debate occurred when the problem of "what to do next" was discussed. Regardless of the wide differences of opinion, everyone stressed the importance of avoiding a chaotic and disorderly transition.

Everybody seemed to think that it is our sacred duty to do our utmost to strive toward a democratic orderly transition. As I see it, the mere use of the word "transition" is a sign of a strong determination among the participants to reject the present situation as permanent.

I think that at a time when most people are either afraid or don't feel it necessary to think beyond the confines of the present situation, it is truly a feat to discuss the problem of transition.

The great question now is whether this spirit of reform and national renaissance will become a national resolution or whether it will evaporate into thin air with the passage of time.

The writer is an observer of social and political affairs.