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.