Why are we so suspicious of one another?

Why are we so suspicious of one another?

A top official recently cast a shadow over dozens of non-
governmental organizations by linking them to an organization
suspected of subversion. Political scientist Riswandha Imawan
picked up the issue, exploring why Indonesians are so suspicious
of their compatriots.

YOGYAKARTA (JP): State Minister of Agrarian Affairs Sony
Harsono said recently that dozens of non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) operated in a similar fashion to the
Democratic People's Party (PRD). This linkage has caused many
activists to quiver in fear as the PRD is unrecognized and the
government says it operates in a manner reminiscent of the
defunct Indonesian Communist Party. The PRD is accused of
inciting the July 27 riots, in which four people died.

The reason the minister came to his conclusion is simple: 65
NGOs have demanded a change in the agrarian law.

Representatives of these NGOs have tried to meet the minister
to refute his statement. The minister, however, has refused to
meet them following information from the Ministry of Home Affairs
that the 65 NGOs are not registered as every NGO should be.

NGO activists have reacted strongly against the minister's
statement. A minister, they say, should not make such a hasty,
superficial conclusion.

The NGOs then turned to the World Bank. It is said that they
received support from NGOs in the United States and Australia.

The minister's statement is only a case in point. The way he
thinks seems to be shared by many members of the elite circle.
For an analogy, by listening to the first three notes officials
can decide the name of a tune, forgetting that many songs start
with similar notes.

But why do we so easily suspect one another?

The case of the 65 NGOs is just a symptom of a bigger
phenomenon: the elite's failure to distinguish work methods from
an ideology.

The thought pattern of thesis-antithesis-synthesis, introduced
by Hegel and developed by Marx, is a standard pattern in the
world of science. Those who adopt this thought pattern are not
necessarily communists because many thinkers of democratic
countries adhere to this principle too.

Three other factors contribute to the failure of the elite as
mentioned earlier: the government's inability to deal with the
dynamics of a changing society; its "crisis management" approach;
and the way it assigns overlapping job areas in an increasingly
complex bureaucracy.

Continuous development has undoubtedly brought progress to the
nation, but the way that the elite see the dynamics of
development are as 'linear', instead of 'spiral', movements. They
forget that people's aspirations emerge every time progress is
achieved and that they have to take these aspirations into
consideration before the next stage of development can be
started.

A few of the elite may be aware of this but the creed that
they are mere bolts in a large bureaucratic machine has been so
deeply ingrained that they submit themselves to attitudes which
they may not personally approve.

This is truer when one looks at the reality of the
bureaucratic politics of the government. High officials know that
their authority, power and shortcomings are safeguarded by the
walls of the bureaucracy. So much so that when a suggestion, like
introducing increased work efficiency, is forwarded it will be
highly suspected and be seen as an effort to seize or undermine
their power.

The officials' terms of office are commensurate with the time
allocated to finish their tasks. And it is public knowledge that
many routine tasks are tended to with minimal time. Often time
constraints compromise the quality of work done.

This reflects a crisis management approach in which any
aspirations deviating from the usual methods are suspected.

Suspicions like this would never happen if the elite realized
that this style of management is mostly marked by overlapping
functions in the bureaucracy. One issue is handled by several
organizations that might have different objectives.

The Ministry of Agriculture may want a wider land-use area but
the Ministry of Forestry wants to expand forested areas. The
Ministry of Education wants to preserve a local environmental
tradition but the industrial ministry is planning to turn the
area into an industrial estate.

Conflicting interests within the bureaucracy are often
overlooked. When NGOs remind them of this dilemma, they are seen
as intervening in their work programs. Suspicion between the
bureaucracy and the people is therefore difficult to eliminate.

The writer is a lecturer in political science at Gadjah Mada
University.