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.