Questions loom on norms in political life

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): When observing the behavior of our political leaders during this political and economic crisis, I cannot help comparing them with their predecessors in 1945 and the ensuing 10 years in our early existence as an independent state.

What I see leaves me feeling dejected. To me, the most striking difference between the two generations is the glaring absence of a sense of personal honor, political decency and respect for the political sovereignty of the public, characteristics which were so strongly demonstrated by our former political leaders.

When I discussed my impression with several friends, most of them agreed with me. Our discussions usually revolve around two questions: What has caused this change? And what must be done to make possible the advent of new generations of political elite, which will cherish values as noble or nobler than those upheld by the 1945 generation?

I believe this phenomenon of intergenerational decline in political leadership has been caused by a host of factors. Two elements played an important role; the decline in the quality of our formal education system, and the transformation of our collective value systems which proceeded beyond our understanding and control.

Let us discuss the educational factor first. Our older political elite had generally enjoyed formal education of very high quality before they entered politics. Their education had given them various competencies for intellectual endeavors: languages, intellectual curiosity, general knowledge and mastery of learning techniques.

In addition, they were also trained to respect values related to intellectual pursuits, including common sense, honesty, open- mindedness, tolerance toward different opinions, the ability to defend one's opinion in a sincere and fair manner, and readiness to abandon opinions proven wrong. With this kind of intellectual and moral preparation, they matured quickly in their political careers.

Our present generation of political leaders did not enjoy this kind of formal schooling. Most of them had their formal education in Indonesia during a time when our school system started to decline qualitatively. A minority of our present political elite has studied abroad at educational institutions of high intellectual and pedagogical standards.

The inadequacy of the intellectual and moral basis of most of our present political leaders is reflected in low intellectual capability, their narrower and lower general knowledge, poor language proficiency and lack of competence in formulating, analyzing and solving problems in a systematic manner.

In addition, our impoverished educational system has also failed to implant and cultivate seeds for moral actions in their minds. In moral education, our system still relies on indoctrination, supervision and blind loyalty.

There has been no attempt in our system to prepare students in voluntary commitment to values as the essence of personal moral acts.

With these educational defects, most members of our present political elite entered politics not with the determination to absolve our society from its present ills, but with the intention to join a bandwagon which would hopefully carry them into the power system. The result is a generation of political leaders indifferent toward the sensitivities of the public.

The changes in our collective value system plays an even greater role, in my opinion, in bringing about a generation of political leaders lacking in political and moral conscience. Our older political leaders lived in an environment where there was no contradiction in ethical standards between the home and the school on the one hand, and the workplace and the society on the other.

In addition, the spirit of nationalism, patriotism, sacrifice, social solidarity and heroism pervaded the entire society. Values and norms had clear meaning. There was no ambiguity or ambivalence in moral, ethical or legal standards. Cheating was morally unacceptable, and no amount of political speeches and indoctrination could make corruption a morally justifiable act.

Our present political leaders live in a time where distortion and manipulation of concepts and norms are commonplace and considered the norm. There is more than one meaning to the word "Constitution" and "constitutional", for instance. Democracy without opposition is an absurdity in any other country, but imposed as a "normal" thing in our land. In short, our political leaders live in a time of great intellectual and moral confusion.

In this kind of social and cultural atmosphere, solid intellectual and moral basis is a conditio sine qua non for any political leader to be morally clear and consistent, trustworthy and capable of acting as a guiding light for the public. Without such a base, nobody can be a true leader in the eyes of the people. And without such an intellectual and moral force, political leaders can easily become chameleons of principle and mere talking puppets.

This change in the social and cultural climate is a clear indication that our collective value system has been changing. This process has been going on for a long time, and has accelerated since our independence. The question is whether it has to proceed in a negative way, and end up in a value system which is confusing and laden with inconsistencies and contradictions.

Of course not. Our value system has become involuted and confusing because we have treated it as a cultural inheritance which must be preserved, and not as a living cultural device which must be constantly revised and renewed. With this attitude, we have been primarily interested in knowing our value system textually, and not in the actual implementation of those values within the reality of our society.

We also perceive values originating from other cultures as a cultural threat, and not as an opportunity to reexamine our own values.

In short, we have failed to recognize the difference that has emerged gradually in our society between the textual value system, which is static, and the actual value system, which is dynamic. In this way, we have not been able to influence the process of transformation within our value system. We have allowed our value system to be carried away by opportunism and superficial modernism.

What, then, must we do to facilitate the reemergence of a political elite which will be the true conscience of the nation? The answer is clear and simple: Improve our system of formal education, and end our indifference toward transgressions of our value system.