Political openness: Where are we heading for?
Political openness: Where are we heading for?
___________________________________________________________________
Analysts generally agree that there has been more political
openness in recent years. One of the criteria is the more
transparent reporting in the press. Jakob Oetama, a senior
journalist and a noted intellectual says in an interview with The
Jakarta Post that the government deserves some credit for this.
____________________________________________________________________
Q: Is the public reaping benefits from the current relatively
open political climate as reflected in our press?
A: I think they are. As the media and the public influence
each other the current innovation made by the press and the
public demand for more transparent reporting. I don't know which
one comes first ... maybe they coincide. And, if we want to be
fair, don't forget, that the government has its share in
political openness since the President himself pointed out the
need for more openness in his official state address.
Hence, it is not only the press but the government itself that
is aware of the need for more openness since it is the end result
of development.
Also important, beside a wider political openness is that
openness should also be more "qualitative" in nature, meaning
that on top of our freedom to express ourselves, to pronounce our
frustrations, to exercise social control, a wider political
openness must be able to drive us to a more significant progress.
This is important. Openness, thus, should not only allow us to
shout while standing in the same spot but must allow us to shout
and to step forward at the same time.
Q:Are we on our way to an open society?
A: Well, there are numerous interpretations about an open
society. I think in an open society there is a simultaneous
dynamic movement forward. Nowadays, the very term of an open
society instills a mental picture of an open government in our
minds, which is natural, because a democratization process always
relates to power, it is the relation between power and the
people. Hence it is the vertical dimension of political openness.
But, to me this is not adequate since there is another equally
important "horizontal" dimension of political openness. Those who
fight for political openness should also fight for transparency
of communication among the people. Our society should be an open
one, so should our social organizations. But, in the society
there are social organizations which are, shall we say,
exclusive. What happens with openness?
Openness should be achieved through dialog, through
communication.
Q: What does an open society strive for?
A: An open society, and this is especially important in a
heterogeneous society like ours, is to eventually possess the
faculty of reasoning and a culture which is capable of accepting
differences of opinions in a natural way and without having to
resort to physical clashes.
More than that we should be able to turn differences of
opinions into synergy. What for? Synergy to arrive at our higher
goal as a nation. At the end, members of a democratic society are
those who, apart from fighting for their own interests, are
willing to fight for a bigger common interest. This is a stride
forward.
We need exercises in our society to arrive at this stage, and
these exercises, I think, will be at least as formidable as those
exercises of the vertical dimension.
Q:Is what is happening in the press now a kind of exercise
too?
A: That's right. But the exercises should not only be vertical
ones but also horizontal. If the Indonesian press is dedicated to
initiating political openness and a humane and civilized society
this is nothing less than nurturing the reasoning faculty in the
society, which requires an emphasis on education and the
initiating of a democratic culture within the society itself.
This will help tame the "primordial" (basic and divisive)
tendencies in society ... will reduce the centrifugal forces
stemming from ethnic, racial and religious differences through
the process of openness, apart from addressing the root of the
problem head on.
Q: Once there have been exercises in the vertical dimension
between press and government how do you see those occurring in
the horizontal dimension?
A: I think they are still lacking. It still needs more
attention.
Q: In what way?
A: A concrete example is the past liberal democratic period
of our government. Apart from the negative aspects of the system,
it did have positive ones. One of those was the ability of our
founding fathers to openly debate differences of opinion, no
matter how radical they could be, as reflected in parliamentary
debates and newspaper reports, including those on "primordial"
issues. And yet they managed to maintain good and civilized
relationships with their fellow leaders and their fellow human
beings.
They did not mobilize people into riots, demonstrations,
destruction and chaos in society. These leaders did not hold
grudges against one another. We need to re-invent this faculty. I
believe this is a democratic manner, a democratic infrastructure.
The values of humanity are receding. Nowadays, if we differ in
opinion regarding ethnic, religious and racial differences we
feel insecure and this feeling is real...
How to free ourselves from this cultural trap? Through dialog.
In humor, for instance, ethnic groups can criticize one another.
(hbk)
___________________________________________________________________
Analysts generally agree that there has been more political
openness in recent years. One of the criteria is the more
transparent reporting in the press. Jakob Oetama, a senior
journalist and a noted intellectual says in an interview with The
Jakarta Post that the government deserves some credit for this.
____________________________________________________________________
Q: Is the public reaping benefits from the current relatively
open political climate as reflected in our press?
A: I think they are. As the media and the public influence
each other the current innovation made by the press and the
public demand for more transparent reporting. I don't know which
one comes first ... maybe they coincide. And, if we want to be
fair, don't forget, that the government has its share in
political openness since the President himself pointed out the
need for more openness in his official state address.
Hence, it is not only the press but the government itself that
is aware of the need for more openness since it is the end result
of development.
Also important, beside a wider political openness is that
openness should also be more "qualitative" in nature, meaning
that on top of our freedom to express ourselves, to pronounce our
frustrations, to exercise social control, a wider political
openness must be able to drive us to a more significant progress.
This is important. Openness, thus, should not only allow us to
shout while standing in the same spot but must allow us to shout
and to step forward at the same time.
Q:Are we on our way to an open society?
A: Well, there are numerous interpretations about an open
society. I think in an open society there is a simultaneous
dynamic movement forward. Nowadays, the very term of an open
society instills a mental picture of an open government in our
minds, which is natural, because a democratization process always
relates to power, it is the relation between power and the
people. Hence it is the vertical dimension of political openness.
But, to me this is not adequate since there is another equally
important "horizontal" dimension of political openness. Those who
fight for political openness should also fight for transparency
of communication among the people. Our society should be an open
one, so should our social organizations. But, in the society
there are social organizations which are, shall we say,
exclusive. What happens with openness?
Openness should be achieved through dialog, through
communication.
Q: What does an open society strive for?
A: An open society, and this is especially important in a
heterogeneous society like ours, is to eventually possess the
faculty of reasoning and a culture which is capable of accepting
differences of opinions in a natural way and without having to
resort to physical clashes.
More than that we should be able to turn differences of
opinions into synergy. What for? Synergy to arrive at our higher
goal as a nation. At the end, members of a democratic society are
those who, apart from fighting for their own interests, are
willing to fight for a bigger common interest. This is a stride
forward.
We need exercises in our society to arrive at this stage, and
these exercises, I think, will be at least as formidable as those
exercises of the vertical dimension.
Q:Is what is happening in the press now a kind of exercise
too?
A: That's right. But the exercises should not only be vertical
ones but also horizontal. If the Indonesian press is dedicated to
initiating political openness and a humane and civilized society
this is nothing less than nurturing the reasoning faculty in the
society, which requires an emphasis on education and the
initiating of a democratic culture within the society itself.
This will help tame the "primordial" (basic and divisive)
tendencies in society ... will reduce the centrifugal forces
stemming from ethnic, racial and religious differences through
the process of openness, apart from addressing the root of the
problem head on.
Q: Once there have been exercises in the vertical dimension
between press and government how do you see those occurring in
the horizontal dimension?
A: I think they are still lacking. It still needs more
attention.
Q: In what way?
A: A concrete example is the past liberal democratic period
of our government. Apart from the negative aspects of the system,
it did have positive ones. One of those was the ability of our
founding fathers to openly debate differences of opinion, no
matter how radical they could be, as reflected in parliamentary
debates and newspaper reports, including those on "primordial"
issues. And yet they managed to maintain good and civilized
relationships with their fellow leaders and their fellow human
beings.
They did not mobilize people into riots, demonstrations,
destruction and chaos in society. These leaders did not hold
grudges against one another. We need to re-invent this faculty. I
believe this is a democratic manner, a democratic infrastructure.
The values of humanity are receding. Nowadays, if we differ in
opinion regarding ethnic, religious and racial differences we
feel insecure and this feeling is real...
How to free ourselves from this cultural trap? Through dialog.
In humor, for instance, ethnic groups can criticize one another.
(hbk)