Spell off power in RI politics

By Ignas Kleden

This is the first of two articles on political culture in Indonesia.

JAKARTA (JP): The late Indonesian political scientist Dr. Alfian used to describe democracy as a continuous dialectic between consensus and conflict.

The validity of this description becomes clear if one compares the political situation during the Old Order, before president Sukarno brought the so-called Guided Democracy into force, and Pancasila Democracy, as implemented by president Soeharto during the New Order.

What was so typical of the "liberal" period during the Old Order was that the differences of ideological stances and political opinions were antagonized so much, there was no possible political consensus attained, resulting in no political stability and so many interruptions in the workings of cabinets.

The interparty rivalry became, as it were, a new political game, which seemed so enchanting to its players that they forgot to take the real living conditions of people into account, which became their main responsibility.

This was why people were quite willing to accept a new situation during the New Order, where political consensus became a number-one priority, to the extent that the differences of ideological stances and political opinions were easily circumvented.

People were told that they should not waste their time with lengthy political debates and protracted political negotiations regarding democratic participation. Instead, they were persuaded and made confident that political consensus was the very foundation for political stability. This, in turn, becoming an absolute prerequisite for the national project of economic development.

In real politics, many things become good simply because they occur at the right time, and many opinions become true simply because they are represented by the "right" people. Soeharto, who was seen as so indispensable while he was in power, is now being criticized and denounced heavily, most ironically by those who some months back were willing to kneel before him to get his favor.

What is so tragic about Indonesian politics is that most of the people are neither prepared nor motivated to lift their criticism against someone who is still in power. They seem to feel obliged to give consensus because bringing up a different opinion to the incumbent power holder, and standing for an opposing political stance, are considered indecent or even pernicious.

Strange but true, only days after Soeharto stepped down, almost all his political decisions, which for quite a long time were accepted, started to be questioned and denounced, and not always with due respect.

The same can be said of Sukarno, who was given all sorts of possible real and symbolic power while he was in office, and was very soon deprived of any fair political opportunity right after Soeharto took over the office of president.

In that sense, political criticism has very little to do with the correctness of government policies, but rather with the mere factuality of power. The fact that someone is in power seems to legitimize everything he is doing, and the fact that he lost it gives everybody every opportunity to blame him for whatever he has done.

From a psychological point of view, this seems to rest primarily not on political reasoning but rather on emotional feelings.

It seems that in Indonesia's political culture, there is a tacit rule: if you are in power, the truth is with you, if you are without power, you are condemned only for wrongdoings.

Needless to say, this is not a democratic attitude, since democracy is a political system which allows for political mistakes and a fair chance for correction.

It is a place where nobody can claim the sheer truth of his or her position, but keep it open for public judgment and scrutiny. The right of a citizen to commit a mistake is counterbalanced by the right of other citizens to unveil the wrongdoing and to make pressure toward correcting that mistake.

On the other hand, an authoritarian political system tends to see the position it represents as true and infallible. The conviction of self-righteousness makes it feel entitled to force other people to assume its position. Whether the conviction of the truth is justified is another question. It is also another question whether one is really convinced of the said position or whether this is just political make-believe.

The main thing is that an authoritarian political culture is always self-contained, self-sufficient and self-legitimizing. There is no room for both its own error and that of other people. In postmodernist parlance, every possible otherness is denied opportunity, which is true for both the existence of other people and the existence of different opinions.

In contrast to that, a democratic attitude becomes preferable because of at least two related reasons. First, it admits the weaknesses of human beings owing to their limited intellectual capacity and precarious moral standing. Second, it gives the possibility for people committing such mistakes to be aware of their wrongdoings and the opportunity to make corresponding improvements.

In positive terms, a democratic attitude consists mainly of two psychological dispositions. First, it rests on the moral courage of a citizen to take a clear political position. A democratic attitude is totally different from an opportunist habit of joining the bandwagon, whereby one tends to head where the wind is blowing. Second, the moral courage to assume a clear position is combined with the moral humility to admit at least the possibility of error in the position one takes and the opinion one stands for.

In that sense, one can understand the validity of the description of democracy as a political system which entails unfinished tension between conflict and consensus. This is necessary because without any consensus, there is no possibility to start working on a certain political agenda. On the other hand, without giving room for possible conflicts, there is no chance for a fair competition of ideas and exchange of interests, which could result in a better political compromise.

The writer is a sociologist based in Jakarta.

Window: Strange but true, only days after Soeharto stepped down, almost all his political decisions, which for quite a long time were accepted, started to be questioned and denounced, and not always with due respect.