No public debate?

Given the string of bans on public meetings in the past year, yesterday's refusal by the police to grant a permit for a public discussion on nuclear energy seems to portend a rather gloomy picture for freedom of speech in this country as the new year awaits.

True, one could adopt Confucius's view that, "When law and order prevail in the land a man may be bold in speech and bold in action; but if the land lacks law and order, though he may be bold in action he should lay restraint on his speech". But under the currently prevailing conditions of order and stability, one might be forgiven for wondering what could have spawned the authorities' apparent suspicion of such a seemingly innocent public discussion as the one planned yesterday by the Indonesian Forum for Environment (Walhi) and the Anti-Nuclear Society of Indonesia (MAI) on "public participation in the supply and management of nuclear energy".

In an open invitation to the Indonesian public circulated on Dec. 16, Walhi said the discussion, which was to be held at the Dutch cultural center, Erasmus Huis, was intended to take a look at past and future policies on the supply and management of nuclear energy in Indonesia -- not really a new subject as the debate over the question of whether Indonesia should have a nuclear power plant has been going on for years now.

The organizers of the failed meeting said they were at a loss as to why the authorities denied them a permit. They argued, quite logically we believe, that allowing the public to participate in the decision-making process about such important projects could prevent unwanted developments and disputes later on. The Kedung Ombo dam project in Central Java is a case in point.

What then is the explanation for the aversion to such public discussions on the part of so many government officials? We find it hard to believe that anyone still believes that underneath the appearance of peace and order the seeds of disorder are only waiting for the right moment to germinate. Could it be that many of those who are in authority simply prefer to play it safe and forestall trouble rather than to have to face the possible consequences of debate later on?

We are inclined to believe that it is this latter consideration that has led to not only yesterday's cancellation of the planned public discussion by Walhi and MAI but to many, if not most, of the bans that have occurred during the past year. After all, almost three decades of continuous stability seem proof enough that Indonesians have done considerable maturing politically.

Such an overcautious attitude on the part of the authorities is regrettable to say the least because, as Thomas Jefferson said, reason and free inquiry truly are the only effectual agents against error.

Admittedly, allowing reason and free inquiry -- in other words public debate -- to prevail does have its consequences. Frictions and ill-feelings may temporarily come to the surface.

People have to be educated to accept the fact that in a democratic society people who differ in opinion are not necessarily foes. The time has come for us to learn to accept such risks, if we are to progress on our journey towards a more open society.