|
Increasing
national debt, national integration, the rights of minority groups, increasing
religious fanaticism, the glittering malls, the common sight of both window and
real shoppers, and prosperous government officials appearing on the television
with luxurious watches, spectacles and rings and imported high-cylindered
vehicles — all these can turn a person into a philosopher, a mediator or a
criminal.
I raise the same question I did in an article I wrote some time ago: Where have we gone wrong?
I tried to find the answer from the writings of our own homegrown philosopher, mentor Franz Magnis-Suseno. He seems to have diagnosed our national issues and problems very accurately.
The grandsire of philosophy does not stop at that, he also has solutions to offer, but who cares to listen to the old man?
Very recently, I overheard a very senior journalist, for whom until then I had a high regard, commenting about him: “After all the man is a bule, what does he know about Indonesia?”
This is the problem. Even a senior, well-travelled, well-read person like him is still conditioned by such notions. This is one of our problems. National integration is still an issue, but allow me to return to our philosopher.
Romo (father) Magnis writes about the vision of Adam Muller (1779-1829) in the Art of Governance. Muller’s romanticism, as noted by Magnis, seems to have strongly influenced one of our founding fathers, Supomo, who later developed the idea of the integral nation of Indonesia.
Adam places the government on a special pedestal overseeing the physical, mental and spiritual needs of the populace. Indeed, a fine concept of government is one where the people running it have the required and necessary ability to do so. His idea of a “total” or rather holistic state in charge of all affairs has been easily misinterpreted to justify totalitarian government.
Was Supomo wrong in quoting and basing his own concept of a good government upon the ground laid by Mueller? I would say no. Supomo was facing leaders like Sukarno, Hatta, Syahrir and others. They were a bunch of committed old boys that pointedly focused upon the development and progress of the nation. For them, both state and the government were merely means to further the cause of the nation. Both diplomacy and politics, as well as philosophies and ideologies, were adopted for the benefit of the nation, the populace.
With people like them in power, Mueller’s concept is not only workable, but also commendable. However, as Magnis implicitly asks, what if the leaders, the people running the government lacked such idealism?
The result is right before our eyes. It is noted by Magnis that in the time of president Soeharto, Mueller was still popular. His concepts, his ideas, and his vision of a holistic government were still popular, if not more so.
Remember the days when all government policies were termed “kebijakan” — wise decisions, turning all policy makers into witches and wiccans. This is no joke as it is what the words witch and wiccan mean: people of wisdom.
We are separated by a time period of almost two decades — but the ghost of Mueller seems to be still hovering over us. Our leaders now, as then, are still following Mueller’s vision. And why not, as Magnis remarks, since for the authoritarian and totalitarian leaders and officials, Mueller’s vision is very convenient. In the name of law, order, security, good governance and, of course, the infamous kebijakan, those who are in power can do anything! It is easy and convenient.
Recently, we were shocked to read about one Mr. Ruben’s plight — sentenced to life along with his son for a murder he never committed. Indeed, the culprit has been found and he also confessed to the crime. But Ruben and his son are still rotting in the prison, while those who wrongly convicted them still enjoy high positions.
Prior to the case, we also heard new evidence provided by the former chief of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) Antasari Azhar, proving that the man he has been accused of engineering the death of was actually shot with a different bullet to the one presented as evidence in court. But, like Ruben, Antasari still rots in jail.
Then, there is the case of Anand Krishna, acquitted by the court, a decision that was unlawfully overturned by the Supreme Court. He is sharing the same fate as Ruben and Antasari.
Ours is, perhaps, the only country where a panel of judges has the authority to declare someone guilty based on their subjective conviction rather than the facts presented in court. If you haven’t studied the penal code, than you must do so immediately, for the system here validates heresay and personal subjective conviction of the judges over and above facts and court proceedings.
In the civilized world, civilized legal systems endorse what is termed as the Blackstone 10:1 Ratio Theory: It is better that 10 guilty persons escape than one innocent person suffers.
Our legal system does not endorse this. We can easily cite hundreds of cases to prove this.
Now, if you look for Mueller to justify this quote from Lenin, you can very easily find this justification. Mueller can give rise to a totalitarian regime and Lenin can make use of such a regime to justify all kinds of absurdities.
It is often disheartening to hear former judges and prosecutors now acting as experts and often appearing on TV talk shows — desperately defending their successors when they cross the line of decency, humanity and natural law.
This ill-practice — these combined philosophies of Mueller and Lenin, however, have not only affected our legal systems, judiciaries and courts. Perhaps the entire system is under the influence of Mueller and Lenin. We may brag about our religiosity, but the fact is that we are still very far from humanity. Religion is just makeup, a superficial layer of powder or foundation cream used to hide the dark spots on our face.
A professor from Egypt, having seen so many revolutions and changes in his own lifetime, now concludes: “Even a sharia government cannot solve our problems. The system can only work when the people running the system are living the sharia values, the human values. Without adequate leaders, depending upon politicians alone, we cannot progress. We can only regress.”
The old professor is very right. We need people who can lead, lead themselves and lead the nation — for too long have we been depending upon politicians. They have not delivered. Let us, now, look for leaders. ●
I raise the same question I did in an article I wrote some time ago: Where have we gone wrong?
I tried to find the answer from the writings of our own homegrown philosopher, mentor Franz Magnis-Suseno. He seems to have diagnosed our national issues and problems very accurately.
The grandsire of philosophy does not stop at that, he also has solutions to offer, but who cares to listen to the old man?
Very recently, I overheard a very senior journalist, for whom until then I had a high regard, commenting about him: “After all the man is a bule, what does he know about Indonesia?”
This is the problem. Even a senior, well-travelled, well-read person like him is still conditioned by such notions. This is one of our problems. National integration is still an issue, but allow me to return to our philosopher.
Romo (father) Magnis writes about the vision of Adam Muller (1779-1829) in the Art of Governance. Muller’s romanticism, as noted by Magnis, seems to have strongly influenced one of our founding fathers, Supomo, who later developed the idea of the integral nation of Indonesia.
Adam places the government on a special pedestal overseeing the physical, mental and spiritual needs of the populace. Indeed, a fine concept of government is one where the people running it have the required and necessary ability to do so. His idea of a “total” or rather holistic state in charge of all affairs has been easily misinterpreted to justify totalitarian government.
Was Supomo wrong in quoting and basing his own concept of a good government upon the ground laid by Mueller? I would say no. Supomo was facing leaders like Sukarno, Hatta, Syahrir and others. They were a bunch of committed old boys that pointedly focused upon the development and progress of the nation. For them, both state and the government were merely means to further the cause of the nation. Both diplomacy and politics, as well as philosophies and ideologies, were adopted for the benefit of the nation, the populace.
With people like them in power, Mueller’s concept is not only workable, but also commendable. However, as Magnis implicitly asks, what if the leaders, the people running the government lacked such idealism?
The result is right before our eyes. It is noted by Magnis that in the time of president Soeharto, Mueller was still popular. His concepts, his ideas, and his vision of a holistic government were still popular, if not more so.
Remember the days when all government policies were termed “kebijakan” — wise decisions, turning all policy makers into witches and wiccans. This is no joke as it is what the words witch and wiccan mean: people of wisdom.
We are separated by a time period of almost two decades — but the ghost of Mueller seems to be still hovering over us. Our leaders now, as then, are still following Mueller’s vision. And why not, as Magnis remarks, since for the authoritarian and totalitarian leaders and officials, Mueller’s vision is very convenient. In the name of law, order, security, good governance and, of course, the infamous kebijakan, those who are in power can do anything! It is easy and convenient.
Recently, we were shocked to read about one Mr. Ruben’s plight — sentenced to life along with his son for a murder he never committed. Indeed, the culprit has been found and he also confessed to the crime. But Ruben and his son are still rotting in the prison, while those who wrongly convicted them still enjoy high positions.
Prior to the case, we also heard new evidence provided by the former chief of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) Antasari Azhar, proving that the man he has been accused of engineering the death of was actually shot with a different bullet to the one presented as evidence in court. But, like Ruben, Antasari still rots in jail.
Then, there is the case of Anand Krishna, acquitted by the court, a decision that was unlawfully overturned by the Supreme Court. He is sharing the same fate as Ruben and Antasari.
Ours is, perhaps, the only country where a panel of judges has the authority to declare someone guilty based on their subjective conviction rather than the facts presented in court. If you haven’t studied the penal code, than you must do so immediately, for the system here validates heresay and personal subjective conviction of the judges over and above facts and court proceedings.
In the civilized world, civilized legal systems endorse what is termed as the Blackstone 10:1 Ratio Theory: It is better that 10 guilty persons escape than one innocent person suffers.
Our legal system does not endorse this. We can easily cite hundreds of cases to prove this.
Now, if you look for Mueller to justify this quote from Lenin, you can very easily find this justification. Mueller can give rise to a totalitarian regime and Lenin can make use of such a regime to justify all kinds of absurdities.
It is often disheartening to hear former judges and prosecutors now acting as experts and often appearing on TV talk shows — desperately defending their successors when they cross the line of decency, humanity and natural law.
This ill-practice — these combined philosophies of Mueller and Lenin, however, have not only affected our legal systems, judiciaries and courts. Perhaps the entire system is under the influence of Mueller and Lenin. We may brag about our religiosity, but the fact is that we are still very far from humanity. Religion is just makeup, a superficial layer of powder or foundation cream used to hide the dark spots on our face.
A professor from Egypt, having seen so many revolutions and changes in his own lifetime, now concludes: “Even a sharia government cannot solve our problems. The system can only work when the people running the system are living the sharia values, the human values. Without adequate leaders, depending upon politicians alone, we cannot progress. We can only regress.”
The old professor is very right. We need people who can lead, lead themselves and lead the nation — for too long have we been depending upon politicians. They have not delivered. Let us, now, look for leaders. ●
