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.