Pragmatism determines choice

Benny Susetyo, Jakarta

Political culture plays a dominant role in a paternalistic society like Indonesia's. The patron-client pattern forms the basis for the relationship among community members.

In this patron-client pattern, the behavior of social groups are generally in tune with what they deem to be their political or social role models. They will never bother to find out whether this attitude is correct, but simply believe that the social group they have made their role model will benefit them, socially, economically and politically. Obviously, in this pattern of relationship, pragmatism of interest is the dominant factor.

This pattern marks the demonstrations of support for candidates in the July 5 presidential election and the Sept. 20 runoff. Various social, economic, political and cultural groups have thrown their support behind the candidates of their choice. Of course, they never forget to emphasize that their decision was made after careful consideration, both internally and institutionally.

However, in announcing their support these groups obviously have an interest in sharing in the power. Apart from sticking to paternalistic culture, these groups, culturally, are generally still at the level of relationship between a patron and a client, a master and a servant, and so forth.

These groups have never taken the position of a patron because they lack independence and always rely on other people for their survival. They always take the position of a client and fully rely on favors from other people for their survival.

This situation reflects the present political reality in our society.

As part of our "culture", the political elite's practice of throwing support to a certain group or person can also be perceived as a reflection of their own confusion in facing changes in the behavior of voters in determining their leaders. Voters' increased maturity in making their own choices has made it difficult for the political elite to interpret what the people really want.

People are aware that the political elite do not really reflect their own lives or goals. They understand that they have been considered "beasts of burdens and milk cows", to be used and then abandoned. This reality has made the political elite lose their orientation, because they find it difficult to understand what the people really need.

Changing times are marked by a changing social system. In the past, once you took hold of a community figure, you could be sure that members of his group would follow him or her. Things have changed. People no longer nurture any emotional ties with these so-called community figures because these people, regarded as having strong popular bases, actually do not live among the community.

The political elite adopt "on-behalf-of-the-people" or "in-the-name-of-the-people" politics. They do not realize that these types of politics, which for a long time served as a source of legitimacy, have become increasingly blurred in meaning. The people no longer want to be treated as a rubber stamp for those in power. They have begun to realize and believe that the political elite know virtually nothing about their needs.

On the other hand, the political elite fail to realize that their type of politics has led to a high sense of pragmatism on the part of the people. The people now make choices on the basis of whether these choices will ensure that their basic needs will be fulfilled. This stance is reflected in their attitude in choosing subdistrict heads.

Their basic consideration is not who deserves to be elected, but what the candidates will give to them. This is the reason the choice of the people is easy to predict, because this choice is determined by the prevailing conditions.

Unfortunately, the political elite have failed to perceive this reality because they are too busy making high-level political deals, establishing all sorts of coalitions. They forget that these deals will not influence the decisions being made at the grassroots level.

The public is taught to give support to a certain group or a particular person, and is geared not to be neutral or critical when making its choice. What is wrong with giving support? It is public knowledge that money plays a role behind this support.

The public is accustomed to supporting one candidate today and another one the next day. As a result, slowly but surely, the community has become increasingly more pragmatic.

A figure alone is no longer central in determining choice. Rather, this choice will depend on the answer to the question: "What can I get now?"

The writer is a cultural observer