Why govt lost students' trust

Why govt lost students' trust

By Aleksius Jemadu

BANDUNG (JP): Armed Forces (ABRI) Commander Gen. Wiranto says
his office is open to dialog with government critics who have
realistic suggestions on how to solve the economic crisis. He
also said the recent student demonstrations were acceptable and
within the law.

It is very likely the students will continue their protests
until they get assurances that the government will make a real
effort to put an end to corruption, collusion and nepotism which
led the nation into the current crisis.

The question is why have the students seemingly lost trust in
the formal political process?

It is political naivete to believe that students' right to air
their grievances is a gift from the state. In any democratic
society every citizen should be regarded as a legitimate carrier
of demand for political freedom and social justice.

The reasoning is that a state or political system can only
exist and function properly on the basis of people's consent.
Therefore, the state cannot be made an end in itself. If state
officials suppress political freedom they actually destroy the
sacred mission of the state to enlighten its citizens.

Student protests only indicate that diversity of opinions and
political attitudes in a pluralistic society such as ours can
never be denied. Sometimes the government so worries about the
danger of disunity that it tries to standardize everything. The
danger of such an attitude is that genuine political loyalty to
formal authority becomes at best artificial.

As a result, communication between the ruler and the ruled
becomes replete with formalities, leading to an obvious lack of
sincerity. It creates a big discrepancy between slogans uttered
by government officials and the reality of political life. In
such a situation a government's credibility in the eyes of the
public can easily decrease.

Restriction of freedom to express ideas that question or
oppose government policies is often defended on the grounds that
it is essential for the establishment of political stability,
which is viewed as a common good.

Seeking a common good, however, should be understood as an
instruction to approach policy-making in a certain spirit, not a
determinate policy or goal. To say that a state should seek "the
common good" is to say only that political decisions should
attend to the interests of its members in a spirit of
impartiality.

It follows that in a democratic state the claims and
aspirations of all sections in society should be taken into
account in a just and fair manner before any decision can be
made.

It is the task of the state or the government to create a
conducive atmosphere in which citizens may express their
aspirations not only through formal channels of democracy but
also through other instruments such as open statements, public
discussion, seminars and news releases.

There are several reasons why the government needs to respond
positively to the demand for holding discussions with the
students.

First, in the eyes of the students and academicians in
general, the present political and economic systems contain
endemic structural deficiencies.

Corruption, collusion and nepotism, which are most criticized
through posters and pamphlets, cannot be eliminated without
changing the basic assumptions on which the government has based
its development policies.

Moreover, public control through formal mechanisms like the
House of Representatives and political parties seem to be
powerless and easily coopted and appeased by the executive power.
This is precisely why students are quite skeptical about the
capacity of the House and political parties to initiate reform.

Second, students are particularly concerned by the fact that
many government officials at the central level tend to have mixed
orientations in doing their jobs.

On one hand, they are so submissive to their superiors to the
effect that they depend extensively on direction from above. Some
ministers, for instance, have been so afraid of making policy
initiatives that they waste time waiting for presidential
guidance.

On the other hand, they would reject any correction from their
subordinates. It should come as no surprise if many government
officials proved to be so loyal to their superiors but at the
same time become increasingly dictatorial over their
subordinates.

As a result, instead of improving the quality of their service
to the people some bureaucrats keep appeasing their superiors.
Consequently the aspect of public accountability within
government bureaucracies is very weak.

Third, the government's sincerity in holding dialog with the
students could have a positive impact on the process of educating
the younger generation. Through dialog students could learn to
become responsible citizens with a high sensitivity and empathy
with the grass roots.

The government cannot pretend to know everything about finding
solutions to the nation's problems. Government leaders need to
listen to others no matter how different their ideas may be from
state policies.

Many items mentioned in the International Monetary Fund reform
package were actually previously suggested by Indonesian
intellectuals, but unfortunately the government discounted them.

Last but not least, if the government argues that reform can
only be introduced gradually, dialog with students could be
viewed as an initial step in that direction. It would be
unthinkable that the government could agree on the need for
reform but refuse to hold dialog with the students.

We must never forget that the students are also legitimate
stakeholders of the future of this nation. Therefore, they have
undeniable right to question anything that goes wrong in the
political system.

The writer is head of the school of international relations of
Universitas Parahyangan (UNPAR) in Bandung.

Window: It is political naivete to believe that students' right to
air their grievances is a gift from the state. In any democratic
society every citizen should be regarded as a legitimate carrier
of demand for political freedom and social justice.