Notes on 2003: Fostering the ethics of political culture

Notes on 2003: Fostering the ethics of political culture

Benny Susetyo, Pr, Cultural Observer, Malang, East Java

Why do You let them woo us into acts of dishonesty,
manipulation, egotism and violence? Wouldn't it be better for
You, God, just to remove these weeds? (Membuka Mata Hati
Indonesia, p. 17)

The questions in the short passage above are just those that
the community has been wondering about in 2003, given the great
damage caused by corruptors, politicians, environmental spoilers,
House members and so on.

These questions arise in a story about the weeds and the wheat
growing in the same field. Weeds are pests to other plants and
are of little use to human beings while the wheat is one of man's
necessities. Weeds will cause damage to wheat while wheat is
useful to man's life.

In the context of this story, it is quite honest to say that
actually we are fed up with having to respond to problems related
to the weeds. In our national problems, these weeds are none
other than the corruptors. They have ceaselessly spoiled human
life. The common people, whose consciences are still alert, are
the wheat. They have been victimized by those greedy for power
and might.

In one part of a book titled Membuka Mata Hati Indonesia
(Opening the Conscience of Indonesia, Averroes Press, 2002), I
have repeated the same question: Wouldn't it be better for You,
God, to remove the weeds? Why is this not happening? It is just
as easy as waving your hand, right? However, there is a really
wise answer to this question. "Do not remove these weeds as
otherwise the wheat will also be removed. Let the two co-exist
until harvest time arrives!"

The community may be waiting for the 2004 general election as
the right time for harvesting so that the weeds will be removed,
roots and all. The reverse may become the reality, though. The
2004 general election may, instead, strengthen the position of
the weeds so that they will continue to grow with the wheat, so
much so, in fact, that we will find it hard to distinguish
between the two.

It is understandable that we should be fed up with what
happened in 2003. This is also how the public feel when they
witness the conduct of government officials. These officials have
little empathy. They have forgotten the people they are supposed
to lead. They believe they know how to solve all the problems and
are reluctant to listen to criticism. As a result, government
officials fight one another, vying for power. They have resorted
to authoritarianism in leading their people. These officials
never learn from history and are blind to the fact that
authoritarianism will only lead to misery for the people. They
have always been arrogant leaders.

In 2003, we were also further disappointed by the fact that
law enforcement remained at a nadir in terms of quality. The law
is still being co-opted by the political classes. The principle
that Indonesia is not a state based on power but is a law-based
state has yet to be fully implemented. Politics remain above the
law and at the same time can manipulate the law at will.

Various cases in 2003 have very clearly demonstrated that the
law has departed from its goal of providing justice, without
discrimination, to all the people. It seems that the law still
takes side with the elite, not the public at large. The law is
like the blade of a sword: Very sharp when moved downward but not
so when moved upward.

This blade, by analogy, cannot cut anything if it is moved
upward, unlike when it is moved downward. The law may also be
likened to a spider's web. Only butterflies, grasshoppers,
mosquitoes and flies are netted there. It will fail to net rats,
tigers and wolves. In short, the law is applicable only to the
poor!

Although democracy maintains that the people are sovereign, in
reality the people have no power at all. Power can be bought by
the money and the avarice of big business. The principle of
democracy is implemented to suit the political wishes of the
rulers and big business.

If at a time that is frequently labeled the "reform era",
evictions based on the power and money are still common practice,
most of the community are correct to say that there is little
difference between the New Order era and the present. The rulers
now don different clothes but in essence they are the same as
their predecessors: Repressing the common people. Therefore, in
the case of the evictions at least, we cannot distinguish the
past and present practices.

The paradigm of development should be oriented to the
prosperity of all the people. We need well-planned and speedy
development to get out of this protracted crisis. However, if the
logic of development once again entails the repression of the
common people in favor of the strong, such development will mean
nothing and benefit a handful of people only.

We will be trapped by the style of development practiced by
the New Order: Promoting a handful of people only at the expense
of the majority. The development cake can be enjoyed only by
those with political and economic access to the powers that be.
Power, again, will become despotic and authoritarian. It will be
employed to oppress the weak.

Eviction undertaken in the name of development is one example
of the conduct of a despotic regime. Power is not used to help
the common people. Instead, it is employed to help big business
exercise its greed. The neatly-established cooperation and
coordination between the powers that be and big business will
further weaken the position of the weak.

The current orientation of development is incapable of
convincing the community that their will be a change for the
better. Development undertakings to create a better life,
socially and economically, fail to materialize, and the programs
instead end up harming the public at large. The people will
construe development as meaning the destruction of their futures.

It is at this point that our reflections upon the year 2003
assume their significance as they clearly show us that morality
and justice are crumbling before our eyes. To borrow the words of
Father Mudji, reflection is a very important thing to do. He said
that to overcome our national problems, we need what he calls the
sociology of reflection. At least, in this respect, we have been
introduced to the humanities bridged by the hermeneutics of
William Dilthey and Gadamer, who have proceeded where Heidegger
left off. In this way, every problem can be explained
objectively/neutrally.

So every reflection will have its own usefulness. Not only can
it be intellectually appreciated but can also be placed in the
context of a fundamental change in political culture.