Traditionalism plagues intellectuals too

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.