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)