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.