Politeness as a game

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on Sunday that the minister had withdrawn his remark and had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.