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.