Our political communication

Many of us probably greeted the comments made on Tuesday by State Minister of Environment Sarwono Kusumaatmadja with mixed feelings.

On the one hand, it is certainly reassuring to know that someone so high up in the bureaucracy is aware of the need to bring order to the communication clutter in our society. On the other hand, however, it is far less encouraging to see that, even so, little or nothing has apparently been done to resolve the problem.

All the talk about democracy is useless, according to Sarwono, as long as the question of poor political communication in this country is not resolved. Indonesians, he said, are facing an increasingly complicated social order which needs to be managed through good communication.

As an example Sarwono mentioned the sudden termination of a popular talk show on SCTV television called Perspektif on which a few public figures, who could be considered controversial, had appeared. "We know more or less that something was not right behind that termination, but the only explanation was that the show was being reviewed," he said.

Aside from such obvious cases, there are of course many others which show that there is little or no communication in the relationship between the government and the public. Many members of the ruling elite have apparently not yet come to believe in the importance of good public communication.

Quite often we hear a minister dismissing press questions with the words that: "that question is not necessary because the problem is clear", or "believe me that what I have said is the truth and you don't need to check". The irony of this kind of situation is that the question was posed in the first place because important aspects of the case in question were unclear to the public.

In the case of SCTV's Perspektif program, for example, it could be asked that, if a cabinet minister does not know why the popular talk show was so abruptly terminated, what about the public at large? In fact, certain officials have on occasion seemed to have made special efforts to keep the public in the dark regarding certain issues, especially when policies that are regarded as sensitive are involved or legal grounds are lacking.

One thing is undeniably true: Many officials still regard debate as an alien tradition that shows a lack of respect and trust in the authorities. This of course is incorrect. The founding fathers of our republic inserted in our national Constitution the stipulation that the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) makes decisions by majority vote, which clearly implies that debate is very much respected and guaranteed.

The so-called talks between officials and the press, which are supposed to convey news and messages to the public, quite often turn into a monologue with reporters having the right only to listen and carry out new instructions. When the government bans a book or another publication it usually fails to mention which part of the publication endangers public order or morals.

This apparently is caused by a lack of respect for the people's right to know. Too many officials still believe that they are the holders of the right to reveal or conceal facts as they see fit. A statement by the governor of the National Resilience Institute (Lemhannas), Lt. Gen. Mutojib, before the House of Representatives in June saying that "some truths are best left unsaid, as revealing them could cause unrest and disrupt national stability" clearly portrays the way of thinking of many officials, who tend to believe that the people are too ignorant to accept the truth.