Paternalism, democracy don't go hand in hand

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): In a seminar I attended recently I was asked to comment upon a paper which, to me, is very difficult to digest. It discusses the problem of generating a socio-cultural system which is capable of moving our present political system into a more democratic stage. It is maintained in this paper that at present our political system suffers from several weaknesses: paternalism, feudalism, lack of openness, and a weak bureaucracy. The big question put forward in this paper is how to make our system more mature democracy-wise without abandoning the virtues of the old political practices that we have inherited from our feudal past.

Paternalism is seen in this paper as having two sides: positive, and negative. The positive side is that it urges us to show respect towards elderly people, especially elderly leaders. This disposition has had the consequence in our society that certain elderly people are looked upon as exemplary figures, as tokoh panutan.

The negative side is that younger followers tend to be too dependent upon elderly leaders. Any political decision, no matter how important, can not be considered valid and effective, until there is consent and approval from those considered as pater patriae (the father of the country).

The specific proposition the paper maintained in this regard is that the positive side of paternalism should be preserved while we push our political system toward fuller democracy. This can be accomplished, according to this paper, by encouraging younger people to be less dependent upon elderly people in forming and airing their opinions. The paper further argues that it is imperative for us, Indonesians, to preserve paternalism in order to develop an orderly democratic life.

What is paternalism?

According to one dictionary, paternalism is "a policy or practice of treating or governing people in a fatherly manner, especially by providing for their needs without giving them responsibility." Another dictionary defines this same word as "the care or control of a country, community, group of employees, etc., in a manner suggestive of a father looking after his children."

If we juxtapose paternalism as defined above against democracy which in essence means "the spirit or practice of political, legal, or social equality", then we can sense immediately that paternalism is incompatible with democracy. Paternalism negates, in my view, the spirit of equality. In practice, paternalism gives advantage -- sometimes unfair advantage -- to the elderly for the sheer reason that they are old. It is based on the ancient assumption that age brings wisdom.

Does it mean that if we abandon paternalism completely, and embrace democracy fully, it will then become impossible for us to show respect to our elders?

Of course not! Respect for the elderly is not a direct function of paternalism. In my opinion it is more a matter of civility, a matter of culture. In any community which is truly civil or cultured, people will show respect for the elderly, irrespective of its political system. It is the lack of civility which in any society makes younger people uncaring and behave improperly -- and sometimes even inhumanely -- toward the elderly.

In a civil and democratic community the elderly are respected on the basis of their merits as reflected by their personal history in the past. Old people who are considered wise will be highly respected by the entire community. Common old people get certain privileges without distorting the principle of equality. And old people with traces of unworthy behavior in their past will be given the opportunity to repent and to rebuild their personal lives. They will be able to live a peaceful life as long as they refrain from practices that disturb the society.

In a democratic society respect for old people is constantly checked, so that it will not lead us toward gerontocracy, i.e. being govern by old people. This will not be the case if we retain paternalism in our political system. Old people will then be given the power to govern just because they are old, not because they are wise. That such a political system can have a stifling effect upon the whole country can be seen from the history of Taiwan and Japan. The true and full social, political, and economic dynamics in these two countries emerged only after they succeeded to free themselves from the grip of gerontocracy.

In this age of information explosion and information highways, wisdom is no longer a direct function of age. Wisdom will be acquired by those who systematically digest available information to generate knowledge, and further by digesting knowledge thus acquired in a systematic and reflective way. In this modern life it is quite possible that, everything else being equal except capability in digesting information, 40-year old people will be much wiser than people who have reached 70 years.

In a truly democratic system such wise young people will have the chance to lead the society. In a society which preserves and conserves paternalism this will not be the case. These wise young people will have to wait until they become senile themselves.

The writer is rector of the IKIP-Muhammadiyah Teachers Training College.