Public debate nurtures true stability

The media has been rapped on the knuckles in the last few days for causing public confusion and diminishing people's self- confidence by "exposing different points of view." Political scientist Rizal Mallarangeng responds to questions on the issue.

Question: What do you think about senior officials' warning to the press that it must not blow the issues of economic disparity and poverty out of proportion because doing so could lead to national instability?

Answer: It's understandable. Traditional thinking has it that discussing controversial things openly, such as economic disparity and poverty, is dangerous. Public debates are thought to have the capacity to stir up people's emotions and cause trouble. This is the line of thinking behind the causes of the Situbondo and Tasikmalaya riots.

My question is: Do people learn about issues from the media or from rumors and illegal pamphlets? I think they hear about them through gossip and not the media.

Q: How do they differ?

A: If we invite people to engage in public debate, we can discuss things openly and look for the best ways to overcome today's problems. This way, we treat our people as grown-ups and mature members of the community with an ability to look for the truth. If we avoid discussing basic problems, we won't arrive at rational answers. We have to remember that no one can master everything. Each of us, including the government, needs input. Public debates provide such input.

Examining the statements made by certain government officials in response to the recent rioting in Tasikmalaya, I don't think the government knows what caused the riot. It's true that a third party was probably involved, but that's not the real problem.

Q: What was the cause?

A: It certainly wasn't public debate. It was probably gossip coming from sources with questionable credibility. Public debate does not cause people to get brutal and emotional. Debate actually reduces the effect of gossip.

We have to remember that the problems (economic disparity and poverty) are there. We can't deny them. Therefore, we only have two choices: We can discuss them openly and nationally through the media, or we can keep covering up the problems and let gossip take its toll.

Q: What are the possible consequences?

A: If we choose to cover up the real problems, what will happen next is more kasak-kusuk (gossip). This will be very dangerous in the long term. In the short term, repressed discussion will give the impression of stability. But we have seen over the past 20 years that repression cannot reduce the tensions stemming from sensitive issues such as ethnicity, religion and race.

If we let people discuss things openly and publicly, we will be able to create real stability. This might cause a short-term crisis, but the risk of preventing people from having public debates is much bigger. The United States, for example, is even more pluralistic than us. It has a long tradition of public debate and has yet to fall apart.

Q: What would you say to those who don't think we are ready to do the same?

A: We will never feel ready if we don't give it a try. History has proven that only those countries with openness succeed. The U.S., Germany, the U.K. and France are good examples. Countries ruled by an iron fist show acute instability, examples being the former Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and other communist countries. They failed to create a mature society and they failed to defuse the tensions that are often related to pluralism. Generally, any success they experience is only temporarily.

Q: Some are worried that public debate will only influence people's emotions, allowing them to be easily provoked. What do you think?

A: Risk is always involved but it's worth a try. Indonesians are not the world's only emotional people. Besides, many members of our society are able to think rationally. Public debate will revive the society's potential and allow those of sound mind to take part in the development process.

Q: Do you think the risk is too great?

A: My answer is pragmatic: The risk of an iron fist and a closed society is much bigger. The experiment would be risky and has the potential to tap into people's emotions, but the cost of a closed government is too expensive.

B: What about the people who blame the press?

A: The press has always been a scapegoat, not only in Indonesia. The press simply conveys what people say. It is like a messenger and should not be blamed. (swa)