'Psychology of fear haunts nation'

Demonstrations, often violent ones, have darkened our days lately. This has led some people to wonder if the nation has abandoned its well-grounded tradition of arguing and debating. Sociologist Loekman Soetrisno ponders upon this question.

Question: Public debates now seem so alien to our society. What do you think?

Answer: The tradition of public debates was very strong here in the past. For example, there was the famous debate between Sutan Takdir Alisyahbana and Pramoedya Ananta Toer.

The problem we are facing now is that people do not want to do that anymore. They no longer have the guts to do so. Everybody in this country has been infected by a self-censorship disease. Why? Because we are afraid of offending others.

We are always told we are superior because we love discussion. But, in fact, we do not. We are just like others who love making decisions without deliberating them with others.

Q: Are you trying to say that no debate means no discussion?

A: That's right. Let's put it this way. We try to avoid conflicts (by avoiding debates). Whereas, experiencing a conflict is not always a bad thing. There are also conflicts, like debates, which are capable of producing progress. A bad conflict is a conflict which is accompanied by hate. Here, public debates are needed to prevent conflicts from turning into widespread hatred.

We, therefore, must have public debates. Why should we be afraid of them? There's no need to be afraid of having public debates. We do have a tendency to personalize critical remarks here. But actually, it doesn't have to be like that.

Q: The nuclear power bill which is being deliberated, for example, has concerned some who might feel they have been left out of the discussion. What do you say about that?

A: It's because they (the government) do not respect the people. They discourage public participation. We have talked about the public's participation in debates on government-related agenda many times. But in fact, we don't recognize participation. It's just lip service. The government also talks about inputs from the community, while at the same time, the decisions have already been made.

It's been a custom here in Indonesia that a decision is made before the debate is conducted. It's a "great" political culture, I think.

Q: Does it mean that the right of the people to speak their minds is no longer there?

A: I've been saying that for a long time.

Q: What do you think is the reason? Why are people losing their ability to debate?

A: We have probably become less sensitive toward community issues. People also tend to personalize everything. They always judge criticism as anti-development. This in turn makes people afraid. Moreover, they have seen for themselves that there are many critics who go through bad experiences because of their critical remarks. For example, what was experienced by Petisi 50 (dissident group) members. Thus, the psychology of fear is now influencing us.

Q: Is there anything we can do to revive the society's tradition of public debating?

A: It depends on the environment, whether we want to be a developed country, and whether it is easy to manipulate our society. The phenomenon is, people now seem to be very vulnerable to provocation. Any issue can easily bring them into the streets and they can be herded willingly by any shepherd. It is very easy for them to become antagonized over anything without really knowing what is in store for themselves.

They do not realize that there is much work to be done rather than just meddling in the Bishop Belo controversy. The Belo issue is peanuts compared to the challenges facing our nation. The Situbondo case, for example, is much more important than that.

Q: It's also an interesting phenomenon that people tend to react the same way when they are exposed to a particular issue. Your comments?

A: It's because they don't have any alternative thoughts ... which is the way certain parties want it to be. Therefore, they cannot figure out anything else. They do just what others tell them to do. It's not good for a nation to live in such an atmosphere.

Javanese say when puppets belong to one box only, and there is only one type of puppet in the box, it's not funny anymore. That's why we have the Kurawa and Pandawa (disputing parties in a Bharatayudha play).

Q: You just said that we need a supporting environment to socialize public debate. Is there any particular requirement to create that?

A: Yes, of course, we have to understand that Indonesians are bhinneka (a plural society). Thus, we must realize there are differences in opinion among us. As long as those differences are still in line with Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution, it's all right.

It's a pity that our young generation has been caught up in demonstration fever. They do not realize their future is much more important than just taking to the streets or becoming a member of a youth organization.

Q: It's also said that there is what is called a "silent mass" whose opinion is not easily detected ...

A: Yes. You and I are among those who belong to the silent mass. There are indeed people who disagree with what is believed to be public opinion, but are not brave enough to state it.

The silent mass manifested itself as an undercurrent. The Ratu Adil movement, in the 19th century, is an example in which a silent mass finally burst out into the open in a very radical way. This sometimes cannot be halted, because they also need time to surface.

Another example is what I call a community with a bonek mentality, a group of people imbued with an irrational determination. The football supporters from Surabaya (who went wild recently) are among them. This does not have to happen, provided there is democracy.

Q: How can you draw a silent mass out into the open?

A: By giving every political party a chance to develop itself as it should be. Don't ever think to make it all yellow, red or green. It can cause us to forget the red and white (Indonesian flag). In fact, it is this red and white that we all should make the priority.

Q: The relation with the floating mass?

A: It matches. By making it more democratic, people are free to choose their favorite party. What is happening now is the floating mass is being used as an electoral machine. It is this which causes deviation. That's why we should get rid of the concept of the floating mass. (swa)

Dr. Loekman Soetrisno is a lecturer in social sciences at Gadjah Mada University in Yogyakarta.