To Washington and Paris: For what?

To Washington and Paris: For what?

Budiono Kusumohamidjojo, Jakarta

The recent news about the planned departure of legislators on
comparative study trips to Washington DC and Paris is nothing new
to a public cynical about the real motivations for elected
officials' travel abroad.

Perhaps the trips would be tolerated more if there were hard
details of the participants' agendas, or these officials were
seen to be actively seeking insights into how developed
democracies work.

Indeed, there is much to learn from the great American
Revolution of 1776 and the French Revolution of 1789 and how
these countries developed into modern constitutional systems
based on democracy.

Unfortunately for Indonesia, it often turns out that these
study tours abroad have little do with efforts to further develop
democracy.

Many overseas trips by officials often appear ridiculous, with
the participants ill-prepared to take advantage of the
information they encounter or the networking opportunities they
are presented with. These jaunts often end up becoming
embarrassing government-commissioned picnics abroad at the
taxpayers' expense.

In our eighth year of democratization, it seems, a lot of work
is yet to be done.

Indonesia's political constellation is so unique that it is
vital we intelligently work out a democracy that takes into
account our social, cultural and religious complexities.

There is little doubt that the American and French democracies
have their distinct qualities, with their centuries of history.

The French Revolution was so turbulent that it became
responsible for the adage, "revolutions tend to devour their own
children". This tumultuous process to a lesser extent did not
spare the early years of Indonesian reformasi either.

But in this current stage of history, Indonesia cannot afford
the luxury of two centuries to learn and develop its own tailored
democracy. Neither can we let the reformasi devour more of its
own to achieve a more balanced and stable Indonesia. Whether we
like it or not, Indonesians, and their leaders in particular,
must work more efficiently and intelligently.

Judged by modern standards, the famous Greek democracy was
hardly democratic. The classical "demos" may suggest a government
by the people but it ended up being unable to cope with the
complexities of its time. It was buried because it failed to
provide a solution when the majority-minority dichotomy of Greek
society dragged its peoples into large-scale tensions.

Lessons drawn from history have pressured modern democracies
to drift away from rule-by-the-majority systems to ones that
recognize the voices of other groups within society.

Modern democracy should be a truly "enlightened democracy", a
proven competitive concept for self-government that upholds
justice. As de Tocqueville was convinced in the mid-19th century,
at the end of the day, democracy is about "a law of justice that
applies to society in general, where sovereignty belongs to
mankind as a whole". Indonesians in their quest for democracy
must therefore bear in mind that they are pursuing a system that
ensures justice for all Indonesians, the majority and the
minorities, the rich and poor, alike. We must also be vigilant
that Indonesia's new democracy does not revert to tyranny or
dictatorship in the clothes of "democratization"

But this idea is easier to express than it is to realize. To
make sure that Indonesians at large are aware that the country is
pursuing an enlightened democracy -- and not an archaic one --
needs education at all levels. We need to teach the principals of
an enlightened, pluralistic democracy from kindergarten age.

The leaders of political parties, too, should be required to
acknowledge this aim, despite their different political agendas.
Ideally, this teaching would provide future generations with a
better understanding about what our political system is trying to
achieve; much better than feeding them with empty slogans that
lead nowhere.

Given Indonesia's heterogeneity, we need to understand that
democracy does not come out of the blue and that dialog is its
most fundamental prerequisite. Dialog, it must be emphasized, is
not true dialog if it is only conducted between parties that hold
similar views. It is valuable when it is used to solve conflicts
or disputes, or to promote further understanding.

Therefore, democracy requires that we become trained listeners
prior to becoming innovative speakers on transparent platforms.
We must learn to accept differences constructively and to
implement the complex give-and-take of democracy (John Shattuck:
1998). This capacity is a must if we want to govern ourselves and
cope with our complex diversity.

In an era where global competition has spread to all parts of
the world, we need to achieve self-government in line with
international standards. If this is not achieved, other more-
developed nations will continue to tell us how to govern
ourselves (according to their image). We must be capable of
determining our own destiny in an often-confusing global setting
if we do not want other people to give us advice.

However, given its history, it is rather unlikely that
Indonesians will be able to come up with a better concept than
"enlightened democracy". Especially, if our leaders' overseas
trips remain "picnics".

The writer is a senior lecturer at the Faculty of Philosophy
in Parahyangan University, Bandung.