Who wants to be a politician?

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): Now that I am beginning to know the inner workings of the real political world in this country, I am more convinced than ever that I shall never become a good politician. It is because there are several obstacles that I will never be able to overcome.

First, there is the problem of language. My impression is that most politicians tend to use cliches and that they prefer to talk in a "gray language", that is expressions which are not entirely correct but not entirely false, either.

They spout terms which can be interpreted as having two opposite meanings which are equally correct. I do not think that I will ever be able to talk in this way. I do not like cliches in the first place. I like original expressions. In addition, I have been brought up to speak politely but truthfully, and I have been trained to speak and write clearly, economically and elegantly if at all possible.

"Mean what you say, and say what you mean" is a motto that has been firmly implanted within me. Against this background, how on earth can I suddenly embrace a language in which ambiguity and loose logic are the main characteristics?

Secondly, I feel that in politics one cannot talk candidly, but must be guarded all the time. In my view, it hampers genuine creative thinking which requires openness. To engage in true creative thinking, it is necessary to first search one's mind thoroughly before speaking or writing anything, and then express the results of such a search as honestly and as completely as possible. This kind of intellectual procedure will inevitably lead to the style of speech or writing which is called "candid", in one dictionary definition meaning "unreservedly straightforward".

I have discovered that talking candidly in politics can cause unpleasant consequences. One can be accused of being "untactical" or "disloyal" to one's party because a candid statement can reveal a weakness that exists within a party. And I am sure that every political party has its weaknesses.

It seems to me that being candid is a liability in the present political culture. Every politician feels obliged to hide the weaknesses of his or her political organization, and to conceal their mistakes, or even the sins, perpetrated by them. This inevitably leads to hypocrisy, cover-ups and blatant lies. It is this final outcome of the lack of freedom of talking candidly that has left me repulsed by the language of politicians.

It should be noted at this juncture that such political language is not used by politicians alone. It has been used by all organizations with political inclinations, i.e. the inclination to acquire power to impose its will upon others and to preserve power as long as possible. It has been used by government institutions in many countries, both civil and military. It also has been used by corporate managers, I think, and by managers of academic institutions as well.

Thirdly, I have a problem with the practice of abandoning a piece of good reasoning and replacing it with a mediocre intellectual product merely because one is outvoted or outnumbered. This practice has led me to believe that in politics muscle power is more important than brainpower. It is a hard fact of real politics.

But how will we ever come to a well-reasoned and wise political decision if we continue to practice this mode of decision making in politics?

I think it is time we seek an alternative mode of decision making in our political life. If we want to be democratic and wise at the same time, we must find a way to respect the wish of the majority without sacrificing the wisdom contained in the thinking of those who lose in the final vote. This means that the final decision adopted by a political organization must be based on the collective wisdom of all opposing camps.

Possible? I think so. Possible, mind you, but not probable at the moment. To change the possibility into a probability, a major change is needed in our political culture. Which is that in deciding the final stance that one will adopt in any political debate, one should not use group loyalty as the sole reference. In addition to loyalty to values and reason, loyalty to the interest of the public also should be taken into serious consideration.

I put this idea to a friend in a conversation, and his reaction was typically political. "But that is a moralistic reasoning, and not a political one," he said. I responded by asking him to ponder whether it is not high time we put morality into our political culture.

Look at what is happening in our political life at the moment. No other country as developed, or as backward, as Indonesia needs 50 days to announce the results of national elections at the end of the 20th century. Let us not forget that this snail-pace process of vote counting happened despite all the modern communication technology put at our disposal by a number of well- wishing donor countries.

What was the principal cause of this shameful conduct? I think it was the politics-without-morality mentality among our political elite that has brought about the present chaotic situation which ultimately stigmatized otherwise peaceful, open elections. What we see in this case is that the public has shown greater political responsibility than its political leaders.

Why do I remain in politics instead of bidding goodbye to the sham? One, because I think that being a clumsy player in real politics is still better than being a smart one in virtual politics. And because "to quit" is not an appropriate response in politics. It is a moralistic response. The proper political response would be "to split" but, in our present national condition, such a response would be immoral and irresponsible.

There are times in our life in which submitting oneself to the will of the majority is morally more responsible than opposing and diverging from such a will, even if the majority will is imperfect viewed from the side of the minority.

The writer is an observer of social and cultural affairs.