Our political communication

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.