Political awareness is improving

Political awareness is improving

A number of new organizations have sprouted up in recent
weeks. Some have names reminiscent of past political parties like
the Indonesian National Unity (PNI) organization and the
Indonesian Christian Participation Association (Parkindo). The
Jakarta Post talked to Rudini, the former Army Chief of Staff and
former minister of home affairs, about the phenomenon.

Question: What do you think of the recent establishment of a
number of high-profile organizations?

Answer: From a legal point of view, their existence is
justified. But if the question is why they have come up now, I
think there are certain sections in society who see the signs of
a possible deterioration in national morale. They may also be
feeling neglected by the prevailing sociopolitical groups.

Now, having your own organization, even though you have no
direct access to the House of Representatives, you might at least
get access to the press on issues of nationalism, unity and so
on. So I don't think you should worry about these new social
organizations, as long as they don't oppose Pancasila and the
1945 Constitution. And, perhaps, this has also come about because
of the government's campaign for political openness.

Q: Do you also read some signs yourself?

A: What I read is that people have acquired a higher level of
political awareness after 25 years of development. I mean the 70
percent of the population who live in villages. I don't mean the
urban middle classes. This also means that the authorities can no
longer patronize the people. That would not be democratic. People
are daring to demand their rights now. If they think they were
unfairly treated, they will sue the party responsible. If they
are ignored, they will demonstrate.

Q: Some say that the government is trapped by its own success.
Your feelings on this?

A: Yes, many officials don't realize that the people today are
not those of the 1960s. The hungry, the uneducated, were
submissive...and food, clothing and housing were the most
important things to them. People's demands today are higher. If
this is not recognized, hopes pinned on the authorities by the
people will go up in smoke.

Representative institutions should now assume an attitude that
supremacy of power is in the hands of the people. The government
exists because of the people. A mandate is all that the
government is holding. If the mandate holder turns out to be
cheeky, by dictating and not providing service to the people,
that is wrong.

Q: What is your personal opinion of all this?

A: When we first set up an independent Indonesia, we wanted to
change the system from colonial rule to an independent state. We
had to do away with foreign ruler first. However, as it turns
out, the system has stayed. The system of colonial government
administration has only been 'translated'. It has not been
perfected yet. For instance, a lurah (district chief) is now
called a village chief and so on up to the governor. Governor
general is now president.

The laws (for changing the system) are already there. They
have not been implemented yet, despite the fact that we have been
independent for 50 years. So far, regional autonomy has not
materialized, although the laws have been in existence for more
than 17 years.

Q: Perhaps there is a fear of change?

A: Yes, we can see the "employee mentality" at work here. They
are waiting for instructions. This is the reason why they are
unprepared for change...Change is surely to come with the advance
of the people.

Q: Certain people are concerned about the political situation
in light of the approaching general elections. Do you share their
concern?

A: Actually, the questions of who will become president or
those pointing to the president's age, should not cause concern.
In theory, if you ask the people most will still prefer the
current president. What is important is whether the leader will
be able to make decisions of a more democratic nature in 1997. If
not, the society might break up. That's what is worrying me.

Today, people feel that their plight and demands have been
ignored by the government, like those related to land matters,
minimum wages and others.

Take for instance the matter of slum areas. Why has Singapore
been able to overcome this? Unfortunately, the question of
compensation always features prominently. The government should
gather funds for that purpose. Where or from whom? If necessary,
from conglomerates. It could be done in the form of obligations
and every conglomerate be compelled to buy these obligations.

Afterwards, flats should be constructed within the vicinity of
the old slum area. When the buildings are ready, then the slum
dwellers can be approached. Coax them to move into the new
buildings. When they inquire about financial costs, tell them
they don't need to pay the costs of moving.

Just assume that their land compensation is a substitute for
the down payment on their flats and allow them to pay
installments on a daily basis. These people live from day to day,
and monthly payments may be too difficult for them to make. (swa/
hbk)