Pragmatism determines choice

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