Moral dilemma while country nears political crossroads

Moral dilemma while country nears political crossroads

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): One evening while preparing for a trip, I was
called by a friend. He sounded very tense. "Something very
important has happened. Minister Sarwono was just summoned by the
President and advised to keep his temper in check. You know what
that means, don't you?"

I was aghast. For a moment I thought that we were in a deep
political crisis. Minister of Environment Sarwono Kusumaatmadja
must have done something terrible for President Soeharto to
summon him and give him advise. Within the Javanese cultural
context, "to be advised by the President to keep your temper in
check" means that you have trespassed a cardinal ethical norm.

When I read Minister Sarwono's statement the next morning, I
realized that I was mistaken. He looked very calm to me, and
seemed to regard the whole event as a very normal thing.

It became clear that he was able to adopt that calm political
posture because he had put the entire affair within a democratic
perspective. If he were to respond to it in a feudal way, I am
sure he would have looked and behaved distressed. It seemed the
entire affair had no negative affect on him.

As I remember it, he said something like this to the
reporters: "I am grateful that I am reminded of my shortcoming.
As a younger person I will of course heed that advise. Thus from
now on, please do not trick me into making controversial
statements."

In my recollection, the episode went like this:

One day, Minister Sarwono made a statement that had degraded
the prestige and respect of the government. This was followed by
a reaction from Soemarno Dipodisastro, an old friend of Minister
Sarwono and chairman of the "1966 Forum for Study and
Communication" (Fosko '66). Soemarno said that the minister had
an "ambivalent attitude".

A similar criticism came from Yamin Awari, another old friend
of the minister, who is secretary-general of AMPI, a powerful
youth organization. Awari even suggested that the minister
resign.

Another member of the cabinet, Minister Akbar Tandjung,
announced that Sarwono's remark stemmed merely from a restless
conscience sparked by the situation in society. In Minister
Tandjung's view, Sarwono did nothing wrong by making his
statement. Minister Tandjung also pointed out that Sarwono didn't
mention any names in his statement. He also stated that those
demanding Sarwono resign should publicly enumerate their reasons.

Meanwhile, Maj. Gen. Syarwan Hamid, assistant to the Chief of
Staff for Social and Political affairs of the Armed Forces, said
that Sarwono's statement was just a personal opinion, and that it
is a normal thing for a democratic society to voice differing
opinions. Thus reactions against Sarwono's statement should also
be considered normal.

Both Minister Akbar Tandjung and Gen. Syarwan Hamid added,
however, that there are other ways to express criticism or
disagreement. Minister Tandjung mentioned that Sarwono's
criticism could have been expressed in a cabinet meeting, while
Gen. Syarwan Hamid mentioned an ethical rule stating that the
Indonesian Armed Forces must always present itself as an
undivided entity when interacting with outside parties. The
Indonesian Armed Forces always agrees to one stance in a meeting.
If differences later surface, then those responsible for the leak
are considered to have violated the ethical code.

I have the impression that the establishment lament Sarwono's
public criticism. Many members of the bureaucracy probably wish
the high level discord was never revealed to the public. I also
have a hunch that informing the public about crucial political
issues is considered unimportant by most government officials.

Even when society's well-being is clearly affected by the
government's decision, especially now that Indonesia is at a
political crossroads, the bureaucracy considers it unnecessary to
enlighten the public about any political discord that is
happening. Preserving the impression that the government is
unquestionably united on all issues seems to be considered
infinitely more important than enlightening the public about the
nature of the current political crossroads. Enlightening the
public and leading it towards actively thinking about solutions
has never been considered important.

I agree that it is unwise to indiscriminately reveal state
secrets to the public. But it is equally unwise, in my opinion,
to keep the public ignorant of the issues that affect their well-
being and the future of the country.

It is also unwise, I think, to keep the public passive as the
country faces an important national issue. If we really want to
promote democracy in this country, and to give it a chance to
grow, then it is our collective obligation to lead and guide the
public toward understanding national issues, and toward active
participation in solving these issues.

The capability of representative democracy to wisely solve
national issues is not unlimited. Outside any establishment there
are thousands, if not millions, of individuals who possess a
higher capacity to understand a particular problem than those
within.

In the interest of the long-term development of Indonesia,
there are matters better solved by direct democracy than by
representative democracy.

Defining the extent to which political discord among high-
ranking officials contains issues within the realm of national
secrecy is the main problem. When former South Korean president
Roh Tae-woo's involvement in the illegal accumulation of
political funds was made public, was this a breach of state's
secrecy? Or was it a conscious effort to bring South Korea's
democracy into a higher level of maturity?

The principle of guarding state secrets must be carefully
weighed against the principle of promoting democracy. As former
CIA director, Admiral Stansfield Turner, says in his book Secrecy
and Democracy, an overcautious line between secrecy and democracy
can generate a broad skepticism, even cynicism, in society.

I think we are at a crossroads in our journey towards a
democratic state. Every conscientious Indonesian should now
determine the contribution they are willing to give to safeguard
the future of democracy in Indonesia.

The writer is an observer of social and political affairs.