Ministerial speeches: A political imperative?

Ministerial speeches: A political imperative?

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): One of the senior Moslem ulemas or kyais
attending the recent congress of the Nahdlatul Ulama complained
that too much time was spent for ministerial speeches in the
congress. He felt that because of these speeches not enough time
was left for thorough discussions of issues that had beset the
organization. It would be much better, in his opinion, if the
allotment of time for ministerial speeches be reduced and the one
for discussing substantive issues increased.

In my opinion this is a very valid complaint which should have
been voiced much earlier. Throughout these recent years
ministerial speeches have always dominated every type of national
congress: congress of professional organizations, congress of
social organizations, and congress of political organizations.

The usual justification given to this practice is that by
inviting these various ministers, directives will be obtained
concerning the way each organization should behave during the
years to come to generate a good working relationship with the
government. And the bigger the number of ministers attending an
event, the more lucid the pattern of behavior will become that
the organization holding the congress should pursue during the
next period of its existence.

What actually happens to these speeches after they are
delivered? Are they really used as references in the discussions
during the entire congress?

If I am not mistaken, these addresses have been used primarily
as a means to support an argument. If during a discussion a
debate does occur, then the person who is able to mobilize
quotations from these ministerial speeches to reinforce his or
her argument will win. The logic here is as follows: If you can
back up your argument with quotations from, say, three ministers,
who will have the political courage to disagree with you? In this
case, disagreement or counter argument means opposing an official
line of reasoning. That is disloyalty! Or worse: opposition!

If you want to counter an argument reinforced with quotations
from ministerial speeches, and still survive, you have to use the
same trick: use other quotations from other ministerial speeches.
In this way, you are safely covered. And what is being displayed
is actually not a discourse between two opposing persons from the
floor, but a clash between or among different parts of the
executive branch.

Is it really possible to employ these tactics? Of course it
is! Just look at the on-going controversy about tariff and
protection.

But the real question is, of course, whether it will be
possible to find real solutions to the problems faced by the
organization by resorting to this kind of discourse.

Personally I do not think that playing this game, fascinating
though it may be, will enhance anyone's capacity to solve any
problem besetting any organization in any satisfactory manner.
Ministerial speeches have been written in general not for the
purpose of guiding any organization to solve its problems.
Rather, they have been written to remind the organization holding
the national congress that there are official policies and
programs that should be closely adhered to.

This ritual of inviting cabinet ministers to deliver addresses
to every national congress has another negative effect upon our
organizational life. Within Indonesian society today the value of
any opinion aired to the public is in most cases determined by
the position held in public life by the person giving the
opinion. Opinions expressed by cabinet ministers receive in most
cases more acknowledgment from the public than opinions expressed
by persons without any position within the government. Similarly,
opinions expressed by a deadpan professor are in general more
heeded than opinions expressed by a smart young scholar who is
not a member yet of the learning establishment. And all this is
regardless of the relative merit of each opinion measured in
terms of its adherence to facts and logic.

In cases where opinions held by government bureaucrats
contrast sharply with opinions expressed by leaders of an
organization, this tradition can have a very damaging effect upon
organizational life. Discipline among members of the organization
can be eroded, and loyalty to organization can be severely
undermined. Organizational conduct is no longer based on the
collective wisdom formulated by members of the organization, but
on whether or not leaders of the organization can accept the
opinions and demands of the government bureaucrats.

I think this habit of inviting cabinet ministers to address
national congresses will stop only after organizations within our
society have become able to find their own source of
organizational strength, when they learn to revive discipline and
loyalty among their members without inviting intervention from
the government by firmly upholding their organizational values.

The writer is rector of the IKIP-Muhammadiyah Teachers'
Training Institute, Jakarta.