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.