When does an opponent become a 'political enemy'?

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): "He is my opponent, but not my enemy. I wish him well!" This is what President Clinton and Senator Dole said of each other after it was known that the incumbent president had won the presidential election. In my ears, this statement sounds strange. But in my heart, this statement sounds just like music! Opponent, but not enemy! What a lovely expression.

Is there really a difference between 'opponent' and 'enemy'?

According to one dictionary, an 'opponent' is "one who opposes another or others in a battle, contest, controversy or debate." An 'enemy' is defined as "one who manifests malice or hostility toward another." The difference is thus one of attitude, or the attitude which underlies the act of participating in a battle, debate or any other competition.

If we partake in a competition motivated primarily by a desire to win, then we are an opponent in the eyes of other participants. But if we engage ourselves in a competition with the intent to destroy another party, then we become an enemy to the party we want to destroy. In this kind of contest, it is not enough that we win; we want to defeat and humiliate as well.

In this case, however, it is not only the semantic which is important. The culture is even more important. In the American culture, a political opponent is not an enemy. But in many other cultures, including ours, a political opponent is automatically an enemy, which must be reduced to insignificance if possible.

Political opponents are needed for cosmetics, but not for a genuine and honest contest for the sake of good governance. This is an attitude predominant not only in politics, but in other fields of endeavor as well. The question is: Is it possible to engineer a cultural transformation in which the inimical relationship among contenders is changed into one in which a spirit of healthy competition and common service constitutes the main driving force?

Other political statements which sound mature and wise are: "The whole campaign was a good clean fight for the betterment of America. That is what the campaign was about!" And Senator Bob Dole said in his farewell speech: "It is fun to win an election. And it always hurts to loose in a campaign ... I thank you all for your support ... To the young generation, I want to say: Stay involved! Keep fighting a good fight ... I will take a rest for a few days, and then I will stand up again for everything which I think is right for America!"

Here, what is very heartening to me is that the word 'fight' is used without any taint of animosity. A fight conducted with good faith and intention can, in a given situation, be better than "cooperation" in abusing power.

Which is better? -- to fight a clean fight for the betterment of a system, or to cooperate in a dirty scheme for personal benefit effecting the destruction of a system? I think this is something we have to ponder. We have become accustomed to the view that cooperation is always better than fighting or competition. We have become accustomed to look at fighting as something undesirable, something we have to avoid at all costs.

Again the question: Is it possible in our present condition to restore the prestige of the words berjuang, perjuangan, pengabdian and pengorbanan, which originally connote fighting for the common good and sacrificing to a considerable degree personal interests?

In his victory speech, President Clinton said: "The message that the American people give us is very clear: Work together!" And somewhere in this speech, he talked about building a bridge which will connect the American people to the 21st century.

Those are some episodes from the American presidential election campaign which I found "strange", yet refreshing. Strange, because it reflects a political culture which is different from ours. Refreshing, because it reminds me of old noble values in our culture which, in the past, constituted sources of our national vigor but which, because of some historical twists, became dormant at present and lay buried underneath a layer of some modernity trappings. Can we unearth these values, and restore their vigor?

I am recalling these episodes not because I think that American political culture is spotless and is superior to ours. The fact that the turnout in the present election was only 48 percent shows that there are some flaws in that system. I am recalling them because I think they can serve as reminders that there are ways of enhancing the civility and maturity of our political culture.

In this connection I think, among others, of the "Guruh affair". Guruh, a younger brother of Megawati who is a musician and choreographer, has been rightly or wrongly accused of "migrating" from the Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI) to Golkar because his latest show -- which was about Ecstasy pills and produced jointly with Kosgoro, an organization which has been known as a close affiliate of Golkar -- was attended by three cabinet ministers. This is enough reason for some PDI people and some Golkar people to conclude that Guruh is "jumping" over the political fence, deserting PDI and joining Golkar.

This accusation -- again rightly or wrongly -- denotes two very fundamental flaws in our political culture. First, the Indonesian word for "political migration" or "jumping over a political fence" is menyeberang, literally "crossing the river and moving into the enemy's territory". The inference is that PDI and Golkar are silently mutual enemies. Is this a correct attitude?

Secondly, behind these accusations lies a political phenomenon which I call the tendency to "absolutize" political affiliations. If you are a member of Party A, then you must always work with people from the same party, whatever you happen to be doing. Thus, you must discuss things, organize functions and sing and dance only with your fellow party members. If possible, you must marry with a person from the same political party.

This is, in my mind, a primitive notion and primitive attitude. If we carry it too far, the end result is the arbitrary partitioning of our society, our country and our nation.

The time has come to wake up!

The writer is an observer of cultural affairs based in Jakarta.