Tolerance vs intolerance

In Iran people are now urged by their leaders to be more tolerant of each other's views. In a country where public dissent, since the fall of the Syah of Iran, has been a taboo, such an appeal has come as a surprise.

In public, women including western women, are only allowed to wear the black purdah. Artists like Christine Hakim or Titiek Puspa would not tolerate such a ruling being imposed on them, would they? But if they lived there, they would comply, I am sure.

Speaking of tolerance, many people are perhaps at a loss to understand why the Jakarta governor tolerates the street cafe businesses run by artists and still does not allow becak drivers to earn their living in some parts of the capital city.

In a democratic society student demonstrations are tolerated, if only because student movements usually echo the common people's aspirations and people's conscience. But why are security people here so afraid of abuse by, often non-existing, third parties? The lesson of history is that students are afraid of nothing if they have to defend a common cause. Do not give the impression that in repressing democratic movements, this administration looks like the Soeharto phantom (Remember the Phantom Opera) government.

Also the phantom of the functional group Golkar must not be tolerated to roam around to garner votes in the old fashion. It would serve democracy better if Golkar would first disband itself and reappear on stage under a different name to repent for its past sins. It is too much to ask to be forgiven for all the miseries now faced by the people due to Golkar. Golkar also should not want to be one of the strongest majority groups. That ambition must be put aside if history is not to repeat itself. The present delay in submitting the new election law to the House of Representatives has already caused suspicion.

Let's take marriage as an example. In the early stage of marriage, love is usually the driving force. My observation is that in later stages, it is tolerance which determines whether couples will stay together or wakare, the Japanese word for separate. There seems to be no better exemplary sense of tolerance from a wife to her husband's amorous escapades than Mrs. Hillary Clinton.

Tolerance, as I see it, reflects maturity and wisdom. In a sense it is stronger than love which is usually combined with passion and animal instincts. Just think of fellatio, as contained in the special prosecutor's report by Kenneth Starr (I shall never forget this devilishly intolerant loyal subject of the American justice system). The Grand Jury clause actually dates back from colonial Britain about 600 years ago under King Edward II. The Americans took it over under their civil law when judges and sheriffs could be bribed. Americans should be ashamed for having to live under a colonial judicial inheritance. Maybe the Republicans in Congress should do something about it.

GANDHI SUKARDI

Jakarta