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.