PDI Perjuangan: So much to learn to become a modern party

PDI Perjuangan: So much to learn to become a modern party

The leadership of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle
(PDI Perjuangan) have been talking about making the party into a
"modern" one. Mochtar Buchori, the chief organizer of the party
congress which ended on Saturday, talked to The Jakarta Post
about the issue at the congress in Semarang. An excerpt of the
interview follows:

Question: What does a "modern" party mean, particularly for
the PDI Perjuangan?

Answer: There are misunderstandings about the word "modern"
that must be clarified.

First , modern means being able to give more adequate
responses to existing challenges. This is not merely being up-to-
date. If you do not renew your responses according to demands of
the challenge, then you can only be superficially modern but not
truly modern in your mind ... being able to think in rational
terms over your problems.

Second, I think it was (political analyst) Arbi Sanit who
asked how PDI Perjuangan could become a modern party while its
members are conservative. The opposite of modern is not really
conservative, but archaic or ancient, or orthodox.

Conservative is the opposite of progressive.

So the decision to become a modern party actually means that
PDI Perjuangan is ready to make a transitional journey to replace
its old characteristics with new ones. But modernization is a
process which cannot be instantly achieved.

If it is true, and I think it is, that most party members are
still archaic or orthodox, then the party leadership's duty is to
educate them so that they become more capable of making new
responses to existing challenges.

It is also their duty to train them in formulating and
structuring the problems in appropriate terms.

Third, modernity is not an all-or-nothing. One can say to what
extent someone is modern and to what extent he or she is
orthodox. The problem is how one moves as far away as possible
from being orthodox and closer to modernity.

One characteristic of modernity regards perception. If you
want to become modern you must be able to see future challenges
as clearly as possible.

How would that apply to the party?

One principle is that the culture of pluralism is the aim of
the organization. We must develop cultural pluralism to overcome
various tendencies toward primordialism.

The killing of ethnic Chinese is an expression of ethnic
primordialism, the fight between followers of one religion and
those of another is an expression of religious primordialism.
Primordialism can only be overcome if we develop loyalty to
plurality, to replace our loyalty to our own sectarian place.

This would mean respecting the fact that we are plural and
trying to be tolerant toward each other.

According to one thinker from the Islamic world, being
tolerant is not enough because it can mean grouching acceptance
of existing differences. Mutuality is a higher achievement. It is
not just accepting differences but also appreciating and
respecting them and trying to learn from one another.

Would the party leadership understand that?

This is a problem. Yet, if you want to become modern then you
must learn to perceive this problem.

Modernization is also a matter of managing conflicts. For any
modern organization, conflict is unavoidable (as evident in) big
economic organizations, academic or religious ones.

In our culture it has always been our way to solve problems by
avoiding conflicts. But conflicts exist in reality. It is our
duty to manage them, to control them, so that those involved do
not express themselves in unruly behavior.

The rule of being modern is not to use physical violence in
solving conflicts. Instead, use reason and discuss the sources of
conflicts. If you go deeper into any conflict, at one point you
will find some common ground.

From there you can try to justify specific responses. Then you
would (gradually) find more common ground ... and reduce the
intensity and magnitude of the conflicts ...

That could take forever.

But it is the only way. Every large country with military
power pleads that international conflicts cannot be solved by
war. War only creates destruction among all parties concerned.

One tenet of a modern nation is that all conflicts are solved
through resolution and discussion ... All parties in Indonesia,
not only PDI Perjuangan, should learn this.

My question is how to make the party leadership realize these
issues, and how to prepare the whole party to meet these
challenges ...

The habit of shouting to one another in a conference is a
beginning of a physical violence. Violence also occurs in
language. You can see from the meeting yesterday that a lot of
people have still to learn how to avoid violent language.

There is so much to do, so much to learn. There must be an
education program for the party masses to help them gradually
move to modernity.

Another specific question related to this is what kind of
democracy ... Even South Korea implements democracy differently
from Britain or France. There are still elements of violence in
Korea and Taiwan. Like us, they are still learning ... democracy.

How long will it take to become a modern party?

What I want to stress is that the road to becoming a modern
party is a long road. You can't automatically be modern just
because you are determined to do so.

The problem is how to move from here to the goal. It must be
clearly described. (Then) you can construct annual programs of
actions.

The state of being a modern party cannot be achieved in only
one, two, three or four years. I think we need some 10 to 15
years so that we can really become a modern party capable of
giving adequate responses to existing challenges. That's true for
the whole nation.

I believe those who are aware of this will become more mature
than those who are not. The awareness of existing problems is a
prerequisite to develop programs to become a modern party.

We can improve this awareness by constantly re-examining
ourselves. From congress to congress you evaluate yourselves.
Right now, for instant, we evaluate our performance since the
Bali congress to the general election.

The problems we are facing presently are really complex
because we do not realize, for instance, the consequences of a
scientific explosion.

Any nation that wants to be able to take part in global
economic competition must be able to choose strategic types of
industries in which it has the most advantage, such as
biotechnology. But we don't have such an industry.

From now on, what are called the science-based industries will
dominate the economy. What defines a science-based industry,
however, is not totally understood by political leaders here. So
there must be cooperation between political leaders and the
academia.

How are relations between party leaders with the academia?

What I see now is a stand-off between the two. There are
people in the political world who have strong prejudices against
the academia. And I think PDI Perjuangan is one of them.

Being an academician in the party is like swimming against the
tide. If you are not strong enough you'll be carried away and
you'll stop being reformist.

On the other hand, academicians should not stand aloof vis-a-
vis politicians. Each has his own role. The two should ideally
work together to speed up national modernization.

As the biggest political party in Indonesia, PDI Perjuangan
should also consider its contribution to moving the nation
towards a modern economy in which science-based industries will
become an important part.

Thus, many agendas need to be formulated to implement in real
terms the decision to become a modern party. It should not in any
way remain a slogan. It must be developed into programs.

Otherwise, being modern will only become an elusive dream and
will never become a reality. (Sri Wahyuni)