Traditionalism plagues intellectuals too

Many scholars note that age-old traditionalism and feudalism still manifest themselves strongly in our daily lives. They wonder why, as a society, we never become mature in the sense of becoming a more modern nation. Scholar Rizal Mallarangeng dwells on this subject.

JAKARTA (JP): It seems that we never become more democratic, more rational, more open and more efficient. I share this opinion. To me, the feudalism syndrome not only continues to remain, but is becoming stronger and stronger. To some extent, it regenerates.

At the elite level, for example, there is a tendency of senior government officials' children to gain an important role both in economic and in political activities. In the economic sector, they have controlling power over modern things, including their technological and industrial aspects.

However, the way they come to power is very traditional, very feudal. They earn it not because of their professional quality. All the political and economical power they gain is inherited. They have it merely because of their bloodlines. It's just like a prince who inherited the title because his father happens to be a king.

This is what I call "refeudalization", an analysis first forwarded by a colleague of mine at the University of Gadjah Mada. This is in fact very saddening. I am very concerned about this.

However, the more alarming thing is the fact that no one seems to be disturbed by it. In the 1970s or 1980s, such a phenomenon would have elicited people's criticism, protests or even street demonstrations.

We tend to be very permissive nowadays. Some have even become ardent supporters for those "noble" heirs. Unfortunately, the most powerful party in the country accepts this phenomena as a common thing, by allowing the "noble" to take part in political activities. That's why I call this a traditionalism or feudalism syndrome.

The situation becomes more apprehending because this permissive attitude can also be found in the intellectual and more democratic circles. The traditionalism and feudalism syndromes have infiltrated the world of ideas and opinions. Those who are supposed to be more intellectual and democratic have been caught by these syndromes as well.

The most recent and interesting example of this phenomenon is the meeting of two important Moslem leaders, Abdurrahman Wahid and Amien Rais, a couple of weeks ago at Sunda Kelapa Mosque in Jakarta.

Most people, especially those who were there at the meeting that night, had expected an open, public discussion between the two. They, myself included, wanted to learn about the allegedly different strategies employed by the two toward democratization.

At the discussion, people kept asking why there were always these perceived differences between the two prominent Moslem leaders. One of them, for example, says Moslems have been discriminated against in the country, while the other doesn't think so. One claims that he represents those who fight for Moslem causes, while the other claims that he fights for all Indonesians. One sees Moslems as a political group, while the other sees them as part of Indonesian society as a whole.

These basic differences between the two leaders need to be discussed openly and publicly. It was unfortunate that such a long-awaited public debate didn't happen. They seemed to be reluctant to do so. One of them said: "We're friends. How could we have a debate?" The other said: "He often comes to my house. There's nothing between us."

Personally, showing that they are close friends is good. But that's not what the society is looking for. People want good and reasonable answers on what issues have caused Gus Dur to differ from Amien Rais.

I don't have any idea as to why it is so. If they think that having a public debate will stir the public's emotions, they're wrong. It's just as wrong as the view that a public debate can cause them to lose their followers. If they think so, they will be just like most government officials, who think that public debates are destructive. They're not. They're constructive.

Having a public debate with someone doesn't mean that we are enemies. It's through a public debate that people can search for a substantial truth on a given difference of opinion or ideas about a certain problem. It's also through the discussion that people will be able to explore both sides' views. By doing so, they will be able to decide which argument deserves more acceptance than the other.

Traditionalism syndrome among the elites is easier to explain than that in the intellectual or democratic world. In the elite group, the syndrome is caused by the excessive and almost uncontrollable power of the government.

Such a phenomenon doesn't occur in Indonesia only. In the United States, for example, there are also many children of government officials who are active in both political and economic spheres. But they are controllable. They have the mechanism to control them. They balance power between the government and the opposition.

So, the problem of the traditionalism syndrome at the elite level can be overcome by setting up the control mechanism. This can be done through democratization: the resurrection of the middle class' power to take part in the development process of the nation.

In the long term, about 10 to 15 years, it's quite possible for the Indonesian middle class to gain such power, but not in the near future.

Explaining the cause of a traditional syndrome in the intellectual and democratic groups, on the other hand, is difficult. I do not have an idea why it's happening. The phenomenon can be easily detected, but not the motives.

In the 1970s and 1980s, for example, it was common for anyone to engage in polemics with others. We could see them in the newspaper everyday. It's now difficult to find such a thing.

It's probable that the syndrome is an internalization of a repression. It's like a psychological mechanism which automatically accepts a non-democratic value after being exposed to it for a long time. They become used to it.

I don't know for sure how accurate my observation is. But what is more important is that the phenomenon occurs, and something has to be done about it.

Rizal Mallarangeng is a Ph. D. student in political science at the Ohio University, Columbus, USA.