Who wants to be a politician?

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.