Spell off power in RI politics

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.