To be masters or slaves of power?

To be masters or slaves of power?

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): After we succeeded in carrying out a fairly
honest general election in a peaceful manner, and managed to
reduce the cumbersome number of political parties to a realistic
level, do we still need political education?

Most observers say "yes"; the reason being that most of us
still make our political choices more on the basis of personality
rather than ideology. This emphasis on the personality factor is
considered by many the main reason why it has been so difficult
for political parties sharing a common political outlook to unite
into one big and formidable party.

This personality factor also explains why political parties
led by popular figures managed to attract a great number of
followers, while ones under the leadership of lesser known
personalities performed poorly in the recent elections.

On the basis of this phenomenon, many observers concluded that
popular political education constitutes a national agenda that
must be carried out soon.

If democracy is to flourish in this country, people should
become adept at judging the merit of political parties on the
basis of their platforms, not just on the basis of their leader's
popularity. Excessive reliance on personality is dangerous,
because a popular leader who shows democratic inclinations before
he or she secures power can easily become an autocratic person
after he or she has been in power for a certain period.

As Lord Acton said in 1887: "Power tends to corrupt and
absolute power corrupts absolutely." Prior to that, Charles Caleb
Colton wrote in 1825: "No man is wise or good enough to be
trusted with unlimited power." And last, novelist Thomas Bailey
Aldrich (1836-1907) warned in 1903 that: "There is a possible
Nero in the gentlest human creature that walks."

It is on the basis of this kind of wisdom that in developed
democracies people have adopted the view that political literacy
is a basic requirement for enabling citizens to exercise their
right and duty to control their leaders. This does not mean that
education toward political literacy should make people suspicious
toward their political leaders. It should make them alert or
vigilant.

There is a basic difference between being vigilant and being
suspicious. Being politically vigilant means that a political
leader is considered morally good until proven that he or she
commits a political mistake like lying, cheating or manipulating
people.

Being politically suspicious, on the other hand, means looking
upon most political leaders as bad elements in society even
before they do anything which is morally wrong. There was a time
in our recent past when most of us were primarily suspicious, but
not sufficiently vigilant.

The question that arises in this connection is whether we can
design a political education program and a method of delivery
that will make people healthily vigilant and not suspicious and
unnecessarily cynical. And after the design of such a program and
its method is completed, there is still the question concerning
who should best carry out such a program.

Most people assume that it is the leaders of each political
party that should provide political education for their
respective followers. Based on what I have witnessed thus far, I
do not share this view. I do not think that most of our political
leaders today are capable of providing political education that
will make their followers more democratic. Most political
education provided by political parties thus far purports to make
their followers loyal to the party, but not necessarily
democratic. Why has this been the case?

It is because among our current political leaders many are
individuals whose value systems and way of life are not yet
entirely democratic. It is important to note this, because in any
type of education to do with character-building or "upbringing"
-- and democracy-building is in essence a matter of upbringing --
one can teach only what one truly is, and not what one aspires to
be or what one only knows without fully understanding its
meaning. Thus no political leader can make his or her followers
become democratic unless he or she is a true democrat himself or
herself.

According to Lord Brougham (1778-1868), a Scottish jurist and
political leader, good political education "makes a people easy
to lead, but difficult to drive; easy to govern, but difficult to
enslave". Who among our current political leaders possess this
kind of capability? What we had in our recent past was a
political education that enslaved the people, ignored the people
as participants in governance, and which in the end created
autocrats, big and small, who -- to borrow Joseph Conrad's
expression -- were essentially "barbarians". How can we -- from
this tradition of political education -- create another kind of
political education, one that enlightens and ennobles people?
This is a national question that politicians and educators alike
have to answer.

There are a number of observations that have led me to this
belief. In one instance, after the campaign period was officially
over and the period of political calmness should have been
observed there were those who continued their political campaign
in a legally clandestine manner. And the abhorrent thing was that
this illegal act was carried out using unethical methods to
persuade the public not to provide support to their political
rivals. This was undeniably an undemocratic practice in a double
sense. This is the clearest example of bad politics that in the
words of Henry Adams is "the systematic organization of hatreds".
(The Education of Henry Adams, 1907). I do not think that
political leaders who resort to these kind of practices can be
expected to lead their followers into more democratic attitudes
and behavior.

Another example happened during counting of the poll results.
After the pattern of the final outcome became apparent, it seemed
that certain leaders could not and would not accept the final
result. They could not accept the fact that a political party not
of their strain has received the biggest share of the vote, and
that it might assume a leading position in the next government.
They seemed determined to prevent this from happening, and again
they resorted to tactics exploiting divisive prejudices and
dislikes. To paraphrase Adlai Stevenson, these political leaders
resorted to "the rusty artillery of abuse" after their "political
ammunition ran low".

What I see in these maneuvers is an attempt to abort the
outcome of the general election through nondemocratic measures.
What I see in these attempts is an effort to annul the results of
a national political undertaking through divisive religious
sentiments. If this kind of politicking continues, I think we are
heading toward a significant political setback. Can we achieve
progress through regressive methods? When are we going to realize
that such lowly tactics will not solve our problems?

Sooner or later we must realize that we cannot possibly have
progress by suppressing rational thoughts while promoting
inherited prejudices and dislikes. I think there is some truth in
what Gore Vidal once said, that "in a society of conflicting
interests the only democratic way in which matters can be
improved is through politics, and politics means the compromising
of extremes in order to achieve that notorious half loaf which
the passionate and the outraged never find sufficient".

In the end our problem as a nation is our passion with power.
Until we learn the ethics of obtaining and using power, we will
forever be the slaves, and not the master, of power.

The writer is an observer of social and cultural affairs.