National dialog to give voice to all parties

By Makmur Keliat

SURABAYA (JP): Amid the monetary crisis plaguing the country since June of last year, Amien Rais, the leader of Muhammadiyah Moslem organization, recently proposed the holding of a national dialog.

Though in principal the idea received a positive response, divergent views have been voiced on who should participate and who should organize.

On the one hand, there are those who believe the dialog should be organized by the House of Representatives (DPR) because it represents all Indonesians.

But there are also those who think that Indonesian non- governmental organizations (NGOs) and critics of government economic policy should be included in its organization.

To a degree, the divergent opinions need to be considered in a natural and positive way as they can also be regarded as a dialog, albeit in a decidedly unofficial and embryonic form.

It is likely these differences occurred due to a lack of clarification on the definition of "national dialog".

Thus, agreement is needed on what the dialog is before those concerned proceed to discussing organizers and participants.

The reason is simple. Without a widely accepted definition, it is likely a the dialog could turn into a national monolog.

These are distinct. While a monolog is a one-way flow of communication in the form of a long speech, a dialog is, in essence, a two-way flow of communication among those who are concerned about a particular issue or topic, to be held in a friendly, open ambiance.

Since all parties are free to present varied arguments, a dialog does not necessarily produce a single agreement. Irrespective of this shortcoming, the importance of dialog should not be underestimated.

It can help participants to understand the differences among themselves. As such, a dialog should also be based on a spirit to institutionalize a mechanism for transparency and honesty.

In light of these requirements, a dialog should involve those can be categorized as true democrats. Participants should not only be able to accept different opinions, but they should also respect these differences. In popular jargon, a genuine democrat will always say to his political opponent: "I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight for your right to say it".

As the dialog would relate to several crucial national issues, participants should also possess a quality of statesmanship. If a participant is a politician, then he or she should dare to say "my loyalty to my party ends as my nation demands my loyalty".

A dialog lacking the aforementioned characteristics would ultimately be useless. Rather than mapping out social and economic problems confronting the nation, it would merely identify political enemies.

As stated earlier, a national dialog is primarily intended to identify various perspectives in pressing national issues. To some extent, a dialog is different from negotiation. If negotiation is held from a clear bargaining power position, a dialog basically does not depart from such an intention.

But a dialog could also become a good stepping stone to initiate negotiations, especially if all participants feel strongly that political reform is needed. At this point, a national dialog is beneficial in making important decisions. It could be developed to provide input, such as what kinds of political reforms should be made and the extent they should be carried out.

If the intention is to launch political reform, then there is no doubt the dialog should not only involve political elites at center stage, but also those on the periphery. This is particularly inevitable for a nation embattled by a crisis of confidence, as Indonesia is now. Indeed, the ongoing financial crisis has crystallized the political polarization into two opposite poles of those in and out of the inner circle.

Members of the inner circle have coercive power, but seem to have suffered from decreasing political legitimacy. Those outside have no power, but seem to have acquired a stronger legitimacy from the people. If the first is represented by those who are in the position of making formal policy, the second is symbolized by those who are not in the government institutions.

In other words, the former is faced with the problem of how to cope with the decreasing legitimacy to govern, and the latter is struggling to have greater access to power.

As a matter of fact, the existing situation exemplifies a classical problem of how to manage political transformation in developing societies. It is well-known that power cannot be maintained if power-holders do not have legitimacy, what is known as the people's acceptance of power.

Likewise, if legitimacy is not institutionalized in the form of formal power, it could lead to political instability. This is because uninstitutionalized legitimacy, by rule of thumb, always attempts to undermine and pose a threat to the authority of power-holders.

Thus, it is not unreasonable to state that a national dialog is urgently needed. If the opportunity for holding national dialog is not seized, then sooner or later the country may be on the brink of deadlock.

The writer is a teacher in the Department of International Relations, School of Social and Political Sciences, Airlangga University, Surabaya.