Politeness as a game

Minister of Home Affairs Moch. Yogie SM has set a good example in Indonesia's complicated political game by retracting his slur on United Development Party Chairman Ismail Hasan Metareum. Yogie's remark was a response to Ismail's statement that the current political system "marginalized" both his party and the Indonesian Democratic Party. Yogie responded that "perhaps he (Ismail) was sick at the time" (mungkin dia sedang sakit) when he made his comment.

When Ismail's party took umbrage at the remark, Yogie first tried to solve the problem by telling the press that the case was closed because he had not intended to hurt Ismail. But, as those with some degree of proficiency in the Indonesian language will appreciate understand, things could not be put right so simply because the word sakit is open to a number of interpretations, including "mentally disturbed."

So Yogie finally took back what he had said. Ismail announced on Sunday that the minister had withdrawn his remark and had assured him that he had not had the slightest intention of offending him. The retraction was said to have been made while the minister was paying a call on Ismail, although Ismail did not reveal the venue.

It is not yet known whether the leaders of Ismail's party, who had demanded an apology from Yogie, will accept the retraction. If the withdrawal is seen as implying an apology -- and most Indonesians will see it as such -- the semantic problem will have been resolved, although the political substance of Ismail's original statement will not have been addressed.

At any rate, Yogie has set a good example of a type of behavior which other high-ranking officials have been reluctant to engage in. We also understand that, when he described Ismail as "sick," had been very taken aback by the latter's statement, given that Ismail has always been very polite and has toed the government line in almost all matters.

What is significant in Yogie's deed is that, in solving the conflict as he has, he has flouted a recent tradition in Indonesian politics. Virtually without exception, disputes involving people near the political zenith are disposed of, very politely, in a way which is very palatable for one side and very disappointing for the other. It seems that, for government officials, all mistakes can be forgotten in the name of mutual -- which really means one-sided -- respect. The use of euphemism has become fashionable, as has the notion of conflicts in which neither side is in the wrong.

Other easy ways for the government to handle conflict and avoid further media coverage is to hold talks between the disputants or to "brief" the press -- a process in which one side gives orders and the other does what it is told. In cases where someone is straining to salvage his crumbling credibility, another person or persons with greater clout may be called in to absolve him. "We are not concerned with blaming anyone" is the usual motto in these damage-control maneuvers.

One result of these modes of dealing with disputes is that many conflicts remain unresolved, albeit out of the media. Since no attempts are made to learn from errors, the same mistakes are repeated in myriad forms.

As for the idea, expressed by Ismail, that the two minority political parties are marginalized: There is no escaping that ugly reality which, it would seem, will be with as long as the current political system is. Many political scientists have noted that, in Indonesia, the point of general elections is not political reform but the endorsement of the status quo.