Indonesia, Oz : Joint obligation for a better era Budiono Kusumohamidjojo  ;  Senior Adviser at the Center for European Studies, University of Indonesia

JAKARTA POST,  09 Januari 2014

                                                                                                                        

I was requested in 1986 to write an article about the Indonesia-Australia relationship for the Australian Journal for International Affairs. My article, titled “Indonesia-Australia Relationship: Problems between Unfamiliar Neighbors” was published in December 1986. I closed my article with the following words, “[…], regardless of who in the neighborhood protects whom, an old Chinese proverb might contain the wisdom as noteworthy for Indonesia as well as for Australia in dealing with each other. It says, ‘It is better to have good neighbors than faraway pals.’”  That wisdom still rules today, particularly when it comes to global circumstances much more complicated than that of three decades ago. The problem with both countries now is that they have been sunk by the simple logical perception they should have of each other.  The leaders of both countries, with a few exceptions, tend to view each other from a stereotype that they do not know where it comes from. It is a long-held open secret that Indonesians generally tend to think about Australians as a bunch of arrogant people, while lots of Australians view their northern populous neighbor as dumb folk.  As a matter of course, no in-depth and productive dialogue can develop among two groups of people that treat each other with little respect as such. Nevertheless, the leaders of Indonesia and Australia should be aware that while both countries are moving deeper into the second decade of the 21st century, they have one big interest in common: The global challenge with its complex consequences that they should better cope with by means of reasonable cooperation rather than squabbles based on shallow superficial considerations.  In such a perspective, the recent furor shot by the “Snowden bugging” affair would look ridiculous in the frame of Bismarckian “Realpolitik”. Mutual eavesdropping is merely craftiness in the practice of relations among nations, which would turn into a messy cardinal sin only if you get caught red-handed. That is a maxim that even rules for pairs of untrue husband and wife. It is therefore about high time to turn sharp minds to the direction of a well considered prudence for the sake of a better future to be dedicated to the people of both countries. The leaders of Indonesia and Australia perhaps need to pay attention to the natural behavior of their own people. On the one hand, Indonesian youth would love to study in Australia, while its upper-middle class would hop to Australia to enjoy a culture that is nearby but “is not ASEAN”. On the other hand, Indonesia and, particularly Bali, still remain very high on the list of Australian travel destinations.  Bearing in mind that politics between the two countries have long suffered under cultural prejudice by which people generally judge each other along the uncreative adage of “they are not like we are”, the governments of Indonesia and Australia, regardless of which political party they belong, should start with the very basic endeavors: the building of mutual understanding. With the lack of mutual understanding, trust would only be a hollow idea, while in the absence of trust, it is futile to conduct constructive dialogue. As the building of mutual understanding would not be a gift from heaven, Indonesia and Australia must work together along long-term and short-term agendas.  For the long term, we need to start soon with a programmed and routine exchange of youth and students, while at the more academic level, joint and exchange studies should be conducted among higher learning institutions. In a more pragmatic framework, both governments should establish a joint government commission to draw up and deal with an agenda that lists ongoing problems to be handled. Amid a global economic recession, such an idea would likely bump against a defense saying that “we don’t have the money” or “we have other pressing priorities”.  Nonetheless, if the Indonesian and Australian governments and their people regard a better future to be in their own interest, then both parties need to be aware about two logics: first, any better future is worth an investment. Second, amid their various international priorities, Indonesia and Australia should put their bilateral relations among the top of their priorities, because they cannot escape the fact that “we are natural partners”, just like the then Indonesian foreign minister Dr. Mochtar Kusumaatmadja stated in 1986. Learning from what the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin said to the Finnish Ambassador Juho Kusti Paasikivi during the World War II in 1939: “we cannot do anything about geography”, Indonesian and Australian leaders must realize that they cannot escape from being geo-natural neighbors and therefore better work together toward a better future for their peoples rather than squabbling under an unproductive shadow of the past.  ●

Education strategy and the philosophy of bicycle riding

Education strategy and the philosophy of bicycle riding Budi0no Kusumohamidjojo ;  Professor of Philosophy of Law

JAKARTA POST, 14 Mei 2013

Indonesia is a vast country that should not tolerate dilettantish national policy formulations, let alone in the field of education, which should always be perceived as the most important undertaking of human investment. 

With its population of 240 million people and abundant natural resources, it is a land that is badly in need of a state of the art education strategy.

Indonesia’s education strategy should be capable to withstand geopolitical shifts, yet, flexible enough for policy adjustments that may be called for by changes in the course of national development. 

We cannot undermine serious thoughts on such a strategy, as Indonesia, like all other countries, faces a future of mankind that will be marked as a risk society (Ulrich Beck) with tendencies really hard to predict.

The quintessence of education is to guarantee the inter-generational cultural relay race that consists of the transfer of previous “weather proven” knowledge and experiences, the critical communication over the here and now (Jürgen Habermas) and a dialogue about the future. 

In that regard education firstly has a conservative-conventional function: to prepare the next generations with integer basic capabilities (Ki Hajar Dewantara) in order to survive against nature and survive in relations with fellow humans (Sigmund Freud).

Therefore, it is our obligation to equip the next generations with an education in liberal arts that is historically proven; a correct mother tongue which in our case would be our national language, mathematics and natural sciences, history and geography and, not the least, ethics and discipline in order for individuals at large to be civilized in an increasingly pluralistic society. 

The second function is rather progressive-nonconventional: to open opportunities for the development of autonomous poietic capabilities (Engkoe Mohammad Sjafei) in order to cope with a future that no one knows how it would look like. Somehow generations of each era shall have to find their own problem solving if they want to survive (Han Feizi, Machiavelli). 

Older generations have the obligation to pass on their best knowledge and capabilities to the coming generations and also enlighten them with skills and training to discover, on their own, sophisticated methods and prudence that they would think adequate to cope with a risk society of the future, the trend of which is hard to predict.

The coming generations will become the more like an arrow that we shoot in a battle of civilizations whereby we cannot dictate where it should stuck. 

Most important, the coming generations will certainly define on their own what they are or will be, while we cannot convince them to retain what we now deem as our precious identity. 

We should not wonder if the future generations would find out on their own to love values what we hate, or the other way around — to hate norms what we love.

We should also open a broad poietic sphere for youngsters to be creative by means of providing them with opportunities for artistic works (painting, singing, writing and crafts), sports and, increasingly recommendable, martial arts. 

Those capabilities are required for the next generations to train themselves to be skilled in independent analysis, self-evaluation and to deal autonomously out of the box, let alone out of our box.

As the human future will be tight with technology which does not promise anything enduring nor certainty, the coming generations should be prepared to think and to act beyond the conventional frontiers and rely more on their own autonomous analytical capabilities to decide what they would deem fit to bringing them to a better life and to prevent setbacks (Flügel-Martinsen, Jenseits von Glauben und Wissen, 2011).

Wading across life in the future would be much like riding a bicycle in a terrain bumpy with all kinds of challenges and obstacles, some of them could be even devastating. 

In such a terrain one should not rely too much on others, as others would also have increasing problems of their own. 

If one rides a bicycle, there is little use to rely on anybody; one relies on one’s own bicycle and one’s own élan to accomplish track by track of history. Change that metaphor into real life then we get our most valuable reason in place of a bicycle, and get the real tough life to deal with instead of history. 

Still, once you ride the bicycle of history, keep paddling, because if you ever stop, you will get trapped in failure and the tragedy of life that will prevent you to stand up again, because history is only a one way path.

To avoid the tragedies of history Indonesia really needs an able and solid government, and not one whose high ranking officials only offer apologies for fiascoes caused by their sheer incompetence or 
indecisiveness. 

The next general election in April 2014 should produce such a government, or else we would be bound for a deeper history of ignorance, which no reasonable nation would be willing to go into. ●

The condition of human destiny and malpractice in Indonesia

The condition of human destiny and malpractice in Indonesia Budiono Kusumohamidjojo  ;   A Professor of Philosophy of Law and Senior Adviser to the Center for European Studies, University of Indonesia (UI), Jakarta

JAKARTA POST, 06 Mei 2013

To be honest, this thought piggy-backs one of Hannah Arendt’s renowned works, The Human Condition (1958). Arendt’s main thesis was that human nature remained the same and was not subject to change, whereas human conditions changed as a result of three main human activities: labor, work, and action. 

While labor addresses the need for consumption, work results in culture. It is action that leads to great deeds and great words that, in turn, enable communities to bring about state of the art political performance. 

It is difficult to doubt that Indonesia’s developments during the Reformasi era lack great deeds and great words, as is manifested in the numerous cases of malpractice in various walks of life. Currently, people are busy dealing with the fiasco over the national exams for senior high school students. 

One should have watched the dialogue hosted by Aviani Malik of Metro TV on the evening of April 19, during which a smart participant of the unfortunate exams described her impressions. 

The interviewed student said inter alia that being part of the younger generation, she felt sad to have been given a poor paragon in the field of education. 

I noticed how the TV host could only sweetly smile upon the weak answers of the official responding to the student’s statements. 

This is only one among the many hypocrisies taking place across the country, but it is particularly shameful that the exam fiasco sweeps the whole nation with a single stroke. 

The other malpractices can be watched on an almost daily basis in whatever sector you may name: besides education as just mentioned, also in health care, transportation, telecommunications, construction, various public services and the yet-to-be-mentioned big one — justice.

The victims are numerous and the sufferings painful; sometimes, though, even heartbreaking as in many cases people are robbed of a loved one’s life. I wonder that my beloved motherland keeps on being praised by nice prominent people abroad; if not as a nascent, large democracy, then as a successful economy. 

They are unfortunately ignorant of the dynamics in Indonesia that are rather Malthusian: While progress is made arithmetically, it does not cope with new problems that are racing geometrically. 

This country is on its way to becoming an immoral society, where people get used simply to grinning at failing social ethics, breaches of professional conduct, or the sheer irresponsibility by public officials. We keep on living on false premises and are oblivious to the history of empires that were destroyed due to the same failure.

I wonder that, by and large, Indonesia’s people have been relatively peaceful to date and have not taken the law into their own hands to mete out justice at their own discretion. In most cases of malpractice, the powerless victims have been on the losing side, which is not unusual in the history of mankind. It’s like nature has predestined human destiny for the masses. 

In most of the cases, they would lose legal battles, if any such cases were taken to court. Zhuangzi (born: 369 BCE), the Chinese Taoist philosopher, very likely watched how helpless the impoverished masses were in the hands of tyranny and rendered his pacifist advice: Should you unfortunately become a victim of tyranny, just treat yourself as a useless creature of the universe and you won’t feel the pain. 

Perhaps most Indonesians are kind-hearted indeed, bear their pains quietly and remain powerless. The question is: How long will people heed to arbitrariness? 

Nothing is eternal in the universe. Panta rei kai ouden menei (Everything flows, nothing stands still), said Greek philosopher Heraclitus (ca. 535–ca. 475 BCE). As change cannot be escaped, change in Indonesia should move toward the better, lest people lose their patience some day. 

Resistance against the police or local government officials has now sporadically become the rule of the week in various regions of the country. 

A systemic change that would usher Indonesia toward more responsible governance is becoming all the more urgent. Indeed, the general election in April next year could be a good opportunity for such change. 

By and large, general elections provide an avenue to citizens to trigger a new decision-making process leading to a better future for them. It is high-time that citizens demand the future holders of public office to be accountable for any professional and official misconduct. 

And that commitment should become part of the qualifications for future public officials running in April 2014. 

Should the qualifications for those running for public office next year remain the same as in 2009, then the powerless masses should be at ease and abandon the betterment of the condition of their human destiny and seriously learn to practice Zhuangzi’s advice. ●

Democratic Indonesia’s no-man’s-land of human rights

Democratic Indonesia’s no-man’s-land of human rights Budiono Kusumohamidjojo ;   Secretary-General of the Indonesian National Working Group for Human Rights

JAKARTA POST, 20 April 2013

  

It has been almost 15 years since reformasi brought about a constitutional change to Indonesia, leading to shifts in various walks of life. High hopes were hedged on the comprehensive Article 28 of the amended 1945 Constitution, which promised better respect and protection for human rights, particularly for the powerless masses, prone as ever to the abuse of the powerful few.  Abuse, oppression, subjugation, torture and murder carried out under the New Order are still experienced by some. Discriminated groups, women and children have become the more soft targets of arbitrariness, while the state stays put and carries out the duties of government by omission. We cannot help but ask from time to time whether the democratization process that was supposed to put an end to a more than three decades of authoritarianism deserves democracy as its end result. Soeharto ruled with a strong hand, always firm against those critical of his policies. Rebuilding the economy, improving the lives of the masses and helping the victims of grave misgovernment by former president Sukarno were too dear to Soeharto to let them become sidelined by intellectuals and elites, many of whom pretended to be defenders of the people.  Yet Soeharto’s economy, three decades in the making, crumbled in 1998 thanks to a world financial crisis and the internal dynamics of Indonesia’s society. It was unfortunate that reformasi governments seemed to be confronted by a stable and performing macro economy (despite some sectoral failures) that had to share the national platform with an impatient society, the majority of which resented increasingly rampant corruption and arbitrariness of louder elements of society. Are we observing a tendency where Indonesia’s powerless masses, discriminated groups, defenseless women and children are again becoming the victims of abuse and oppression, this time at the hands of a faceless authoritarian democracy? If that indication is true, such a development would render our nascent democracy futile.  It is becoming increasingly difficult to deny that the current noisy process of democratization is heading into a dark tunnel that may well be followed by more failed Indonesian administrations. Today, we can see three paradigms of government in Indonesia in regard to human rights. Sukarno said a definite “no” to human rights, which he cursed as a product of liberalism and capitalism.  Soeharto turned a deaf ear vis-à-vis calls to respect human rights, but to the surprise of many he single-handedly established the National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM) in 1993, while such a body was still absent in other ASEAN countries.  The reformasi governments have not been uniform in their stance on the issue. Former president Abdurrahman Wahid and his successor, former president Megawati Soekarnoputri both issued regulations that effected the daily lives of discriminated groups for the better. The government of current President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono officially adopted various international human rights instruments, but this has been poorly reflected in terms of what has occurred on the ground.  In the last five years, our so-called pluralistic nation has witnessed a deterioration in tolerance. The Department of Justice was renamed the Law and Human Rights Ministry, but this has turned out to be a change in name only, while the quality of its business remains poor.  Should we simply surrender to the fact that we are living in a period of Indonesian history where we will not likely see any progress? Yudhoyono recently stated that — given the general elections in April 2014 — Indonesia was now in a “political year”, as if previous years had no political meaning. Still, we can detect an atmosphere where people are placing high hopes and expectations on the next general elections.  People obviously expect a more effective government that is willing to take bold actions, not least with regard to respecting marginalized groups, women and children, as is enshrined in the 1945 Constitution, which confirms the Republic is for all Indonesians.  Should the five years following the next general elections again turn out to be meaningless in terms of bettering the lives of the masses, we must be prepared to travel deeper into that dark tunnel that ignores the lives of the people and acknowledge the hard reality that in Indonesia, the issue of human rights is rooted firmly in no man’s land.  Yet, Indonesians are entitled to demand that the next government heeds the Darwinism of civilization that calls for sensible societies to proceed to more civilized paradigms of political order. That demand should be expressed in the general elections of April 2014. ●

The Role of Oppositional Media Amid Corrupt Cartel Politics

The Cost of Multy-Party Governance in Indonesia

Budiono Kusumohamidjojo, FORMERLY PROFESSOR OF PHILOSOPHY OF LAW,

IS NOW OFF-COUNSEL WITH NURHADIAN, KARTOHADIPRODJO, NOORCAHYO, IN JAKARTA

Sumber : JAKARTA POST, 16 Februari 2012

About 70 years ago president Sukarno wrote in one of his political papers that being part of his “Di Bawah Bendera Revolusi” (Under the Banner of the Revolution) that a prime minister who governed under a liberal democracy and succumbed to a vote of no confidence one day would land on the street the next day. Liberalism did not look that dramatic those days, though, let alone nowadays.

However, Sukarno indeed shunned liberalism and its potential turbulent risks, but particularly also because he knew his folk pretty well. Were Sukarno still alive, he would weep to watch liberal-cum-anarchic democracy par excellence being practiced in Indonesia now.

So to distract from the dangers of liberal democracy, he tried to wrap-up Indonesia’s complex diversity into his paradoxical doctrine of Nasakom intended to reconcile the nationalist, religious and communist elements under one ideological roof. We knew that it became one of the most important stumbling blocks that led to his disgrace.

About 25 years later, when coming to power in 1966, president Soeharto took the positive side of the unhappy triad Nasakom, replaced the “Com” with his own political machine: Golkar, and ruled Indonesia almost with no significant challenge for the next three decades.

He stepped down because it was about time for him, as he just could not come up with the changing strategic circumstances, domestic as well as international, although president Bill Clinton needed one year to urge him to resign (“The Strategist”, TIME, Jan. 30, 2012).

Then in 1998, Soeharto’s New Order was replaced by a political creature named Reformasi, which indeed reformed many things, save the well being of the people at large. Perhaps that is still too good if compared to Martin Luther’s Reformation that brought about a 30-year war ransacking Europe in the 17th century.

Nonetheless, we live or should live in a different age and world to spare people from lots of unnecessary miseries. And yet, Indonesia is suffering from increasing chaos in various sectors, thanks to Reformasi which has ushered Demokrasi, very likely in name only.

It is rather unfortunate that the Reformasi style democracy is based on freedom rather than on liberty. It is basically conceived as freedom from everything that the middle class in any society would despise: authoritarianism, oppression, patronage, dirigisme and the like.

As a matter of fact, Indonesia’s reasonable democracy is still in the process of coming of age, and apparently it needs time to become an enlightened one based on liberty to construct a better future.

No doubt, freedom from Soeharto’s New Order must be coupled with liberty as a mindset to “giving freely, generous, not sparing; open-minded, not prejudiced... for general broadening of the mind” (Oxford Encyclopedic English Dictionary).

In the aftermath of the May 1998 riots, John Shattuck being Assistant Secretary of State testified in the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs that Indonesian politicians must be willing to get out of their respective box of primordial interests and get into the smart give and take exchange in a pluralistic democracy that is the result of Indonesia’s own general elections (Testimony On Human Rights In Indonesia, 1998). After almost 14 years on, it’s sad to watch that Shattuck’s reminder has merely drowned into oblivion.

Indonesian politicians at large have even gone farther into unconstructive if not destructive horse trading commensurate to “politricking” rather than fair and constructive consensus building, which should be a positive consequence of a multi-party democracy.

It is true that the general elections held since Reformasi have become a Darwinian political selection process that entails fewer and fewer political parties. From the 48 political parties endorsed for the general elections in 1999, as a result of the 2009 general elections we have nine political parties represented in the legislature, and still our politicians seem to have learned very little about the tremendous costs of multi-party governance they have inflicted on the people. E.g.: Consider the hanky-panky they play around with ridiculous renovations in the parliament’s premises.

Then compare it to the crumbling bridges and school buildings in the regions, which drew worldwide attention thanks to BBC London news.

Most of our politicians don’t seem to have a heart, and perhaps the worse: They don’t avail over a clear mind as well.

Meanwhile, the ongoing chaotic situation cannot be left out of hand, lest we risk more labor, religious, communal riots and violence rampaging the country, only evincing that the present multi-party system has been ineffective in coming up with decisive solutions. It’s about time that Indonesia needs more than merely democracy, all the more an archaic one, we need order.

If we mean to draw a lesson from the 14 years of dragging Reformasi, nine political parties still seem to be too much. Perhaps we should refer back to the old recipes of Sukarno and Soeharto of maintaining order under a triad, however, which now has to abide by reasonable requirements of the age.

Somehow, a political triad is much better rather than monolithic rule, because as always a triad implies a built-in mutual control. And please be reminded, should there be an indecisive celebrity elected to the office of the president, he or she will be under constant pressure from the tripartite power sharing dynamics to make decisions and to take steps to govern the country, rather than staying aloof and sterile.

As a matter of course, there are always risks abounding with any political system. Sukarno was brought down by his own paradoxical triad, while Soeharto mastered it for three decades as a solid “three in one” regime.

The next simplified party system may well represent the nationalist, religious and the so-called democratically aspired political stake-holders.

We will have to leave it to the next three-party system, how they would deal with the president on a check-and-balance basis to produce order, and justice, and the long sought welfare of the people. ●

Law and mafia democracy

Law and mafia democracy

Budiono Kusumohamidjojo, FORMERLY PROFESSOR OF PHILOSOPHY OF LAW

Sumber : JAKARTA POST, 30 Januari 2012

Indonesia may not seem to have enough problems in its realm of law. Imagine that youngsters and even school kids have been accused of “stealing” a pair of old slippers, some flowers and iron rods, or that a person who brawled with the son of a police officer became dragged into police detention, was taken to court and would probably wind up in jail. In other cases people are facing three years in jail for stealing three hens.

In those low-end cases, law enforcers didn’t seem to have much to do. However, big guys pronounced guilty by the courts of embezzling millions of dollars may get probably five years’ imprisonment and walk free after serving two thirds of their jail term if they behave. In such high end cases law enforcers didn’t seem to know what to do.

No sane human being would be able to conceive such a complicated legal theater in a republic with 240 million people. Like it or not, such is the map of the current legal situation in Indonesia produced by the almost 14 years of Reformasi that followed the Soeharto regime. While Soeharto’s clan was famous for being corrupt, now democracy is being used by mafia-like practices all the way down the aisles of state apparatuses. Mafia-like practices involved include deceit, corruption, bribery, extortion, intimidation, extra-judicial seizure, terror, etc.

The democratization process was supposed to strengthen Indonesia’s legal institutions. Watch what the country doesn’t have now: At the highest level we have the Supreme Court, now enhanced by an even stronger Constitutional Court that can rule which law runs against the Constitution of 1945. The Police Force which was put under the shadow of the Armed Forces by President Soeharto is now under the direct command of the President, which actually makes a President pretty powerful, provided the President understands it. The Attorney General must now be approved by the House of Representatives. And still, the Police and the AG office have become even more renowned for their massive corrupt practices.

Supposed to fight corruption, now there is a special Corruption Court and a Corruption Eradication Commission, which has turned out to be a daily spectacle for the media. And yet, after more than a decade of institutional reform the Indonesian people seem to get increasingly confused although also used to the daily drama they have to watch at the legal theater.

Most people are just amazed by the complexity of the soap opera being performed by shrewd intriguers, but still they understand that lots of foul play have been carried out by the players.

Nevertheless, don’t be misled, let alone be naïve, because Indonesia is a large country with abundant natural resources and 240 million people. Those who dare to govern this country with sanity and a strong political will would be praised for bringing decent quality of living if not welfare to their people. Yet those who merely want to rule and are capable of it would just amass enormous power and wealth, most probably for their own peers.

A process of democratization should actually bring about the involvement of the people’s representation in government toward the implementation of their consensus set as laws. The flaw may nest indeed in the circumstances of the people’s representation. If we elect daring, reasonable and conscience-minded representatives, then we may expect that we can trust that the country is in good hands.

The problem with general elections is that they are like shooting an arrow whose direction we can’t control. We can only regret later on if we elect poor representatives. The more abundant these poor representatives are, the more unfortunate we would be, which very likely is the case that Indonesia is now experiencing.

Rather than being on the path to building a strong democratic government, the danger Indonesia is being confronted with now is that it has to witness a mafia democracy in the making. The Free Online Dictionary refers to the classic term “mafia” generally to “a loose affiliation of gangsters in charge of organized criminal activities”. Although the techniques applied are by and large the same, the modern Mafia has a much more complex interest: political power. Because by acquiring political power one easily acquires the rest of what one wants to have, which seems to be exactly the stage that Indonesia is at now.

The biggest problem with mafias is that their interests run directly against the people’s interests and even tend to endanger the state. The danger becomes more aggravating because mafia-like perpetrators in Indonesia are now cleverly riding democracy as a vehicle. That’s why “Democracy Mafia” now seems to be ubiquitously permeating the social fabric and the government institutions alike.

Because Democracy Mafia is a process that involves infighting, in the better scenario it may end up in a dominating clan. If that were the case, then we might experience a powerful oligarchy that resembles no less than another form of dictatorship. In a worse scenario, ongoing head to head infighting would crumble the democratic institutions per se, which would lead to social disintegration.

To prevent both scenarios from coming true, Indonesia needs a selfless leadership with sharp mind and clear conscience, but also with decisiveness and strong stomach in order to deal with political adventurers who free-ride the democratic vehicle, as merely goodwill doesn’t count any longer. Hopefully such a leadership is still among the 240 million people. ●

The World’s economy in the aftermath of the European crisis

The World’s economy

in the aftermath of the European crisis

Budiono Kusumohamidjojo, SENIOR ADVISER FOR THE CENTER FOR EUROPEAN STUDIES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF INDONESIA

Sumber : JAKARTA POST, 2 Januari 2012

It’s hard to ignore that Europe might have been the most interesting continent on Earth that ruled even following the establishment of the United States in 1776 by splinter groups of liberal Europeans.

In the 19th century, Japanese, Chinese and Thai rulers sent their young people to Europe to study at universities and military academies.

I don’t have specific data, but I see how people in our era from all over the world, including Indonesian, love to come flocking to Berlin, Paris, Rome, Vienna or Amsterdam, to name some of those exotic places, for trading, science, politics, culture or even fashion.

The continental diversity of its sophisticated cultures surpasses even that of Africa. Switzerland, with a population of 7.5 million, acknowledges four official languages and don’t ever try to second one after any other of it.

The current “Italian” Prime Minister Elio di Rupo of Belgium with 11 million people has reportedly had problems to govern because he barely speaks Dutch, one of the kingdom’s three official languages. Europeans used to be proud of their respective identities and sovereignty, which eventually became the cause of two devastating world wars.

And yet they cannot escape being neighbors to each other through the centuries. Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin (1878-1953), who used to be a geography teacher, once said: “We can’t do anything about geography.” That foretells the fate of Europe also. The syndrome finally led Europeans to the formation of the European Union, with first efforts done in 1953.

The French and Germans, two bitter enemy nations in two world wars, became the core proponents of a movement toward a peaceful and prosperous Europe.

They also stood at the forefront to fight for “more Europe” when it was challenged by the dragging crisis at the Brussels summit in early December. Their biggest problem to date is they are quite willing to share money, but not sovereignty, which will remain an enigma.

Forget the British, because they don’t want to share either and merely want to be an island despite being a member of the European Union.

Enter 2012. Europe will never be the same again, and neither will the world be as well. Europe may remain exotic for other peoples of the world, however, the coming Europe will become more dependent on the rest of the planet.

It cannot be otherwise as particularly the government of the People’s Republic of China through its state banks and state enterprises will have increasingly word in the European companies they have already acquired, from Sweden’s Saab and Volvo all the way down to Greece’s Piraeus port.

That will really mean a lot, as prominent German philosopher Jürgen Habermas already warned a decade ago that politics can be democratic, but money cannot be.

So, rather than making a furor about human rights, Tibet or other things as in the past, for at least the next two or three decades ahead Europeans will have to tacitly swallow
some bitter political values which they despise. This is no illusion, because Italy, being the third industrial power in Europe, will need at least 20 years to overcome its present economic hurdles.

Despite all still open calculations, however, Europe does not need to be deemed a lost world player. Somehow, European nations may prevail over deep cultural roots based on solid Greek and Roman civilizations, both important contributors to history leading to our current modernity. By one way or another in the coming decades, Europeans will have to share their science and technological know-how with the world, as already demanded by China.

Europe will become an even more open continent indeed. When the Marshall Plan stimulated the economic development of European countries, they “imported” workforce divisions from adjacent regions, which eventually became evident in all the sociocultural problems they shoulder now.

The integration problem of immigrants notwithstanding, Europe is now already in the process of “importing” capital from rich, though not necessarily prosperous, countries. We are yet to watch what the third wave of “imports” for Europe.

Europeans may also share their social and political know-how gained from the many revolutions and wars they have had through the centuries, from which they have developed state-of-the-art social and political governance leading to five decades of welfare societies.

Like it or not, leaders of developing countries, Indonesians not excepted, would have to learn from Europeans how governments abode by their obligation to deliver a decent life to their citizens. Niccolo Machiavelli already stated in the early 16th century that states that cannot deliver to their citizens have no reason to exist.

The European crisis of the early 21st century is precarious indeed, and the European leaders are still scrambling for enduring solutions. Nevertheless, through the last decades Europe has produced the best leaders and statesmen with long-term visions in their history.

They somehow have left behind most of the problems of ideological egoism, which is still troubling the larger rest of the world community. Indonesian politicians could draw tremendous lessons from that rich experience, rather than frequently bragging about their hollow “our identity” slogan.

The coming Europe may probably not be as lavish as it used to be during the last decades, but it will not become a lame continent either.

The world should welcome a Europe that would hopefully be more prudent and responsible to itself and to the world. ●

The European crisis Lessons for Indonesia

The European crisis Lessons for Indonesia

Budiono Kusumohamidjojo, SENIOR ADVISER AT THE CENTRE FOR EUROPEAN STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF INDONESIA

Sumber : JAKARTA POST, 26 Desember 2011

The European economic crisis was triggered mainly by a flaw in the euro currency mechanism in late 2009, when Greece suddenly came close to a state default. Italy was on the way to follow suit. The ensuing crisis is only part of more complex problems plaguing the old continent and it directly threatens the fabric of the European societies.

Capitalism does not appear to be adequate for rescuing the welfare society. It is beyond doubt that Europe is in need of an overhaul of its social and political structures and institutions.

The trouble shaking Greece and Italy has startled European leaders, as both countries are cradles of European civilization and are in many ways also important contributors to our present world civilization.

There is general acknowledgment that the whole crisis has its cause in the enduring tacit complacency of European societies and their political leaders. Like it or not, they have been oblivious during the pleasant achievement of having rebuilt Europe from the rubble of the Second World War. Economists, sociologists and philosophers alike generally agree that Europe is now actually facing the fact that “it is pay day”.

Only Germany seems to have kept its track, based on its eight centuries old Hansa tradition supported by even older guilds, which combines innovative hard work, producing and trading. Still, even Germany cannot escape being part of a Europe now compelled to undergo a process of reconstruction, and if not deconstruction, of its social-cultural structure and institutions.

The idea of freedom being the philosophical product of the Renaissance and the French Revolution of 1789 has certainly played a decisive role in shaping European civilization. However, any civilization has its own failings. In some respects the idea of freedom and the creativity it stimulates has its price. Grave new problems, beyond human recognition, come to the surface and startle the “sacred” welfare society.

The good thing is that the European summit held recently in Brussels drew important lessons from the precarious situation. Seventeen of the 27 members of the EU have agreed to stringent disciplinary measures to bring the crisis under control. Still, in the depth of the crisis EU leaders also seem capable of reflecting the wisdom of the French Noble Prize winner Albert Camus (1913-1960), who once said something like, “if you are happy, don’t forget yourself, and if you are desperate, don’t kill yourself.”

Indonesia can learn a lot from the European experience and how their leaders are responding. Indonesian leaders should prepare for 2012, as the decisions made in Brussels will ensure a sort of austerity that will be felt in other parts of the world. The European golden economic ball of the 20th century is over.

The seeming anticlimax of the European civilization has obviously dragged the European leaders into resignation and concern about the future of Europe, while they concurrently watch the rise of new global players, particularly in East Asia and South America. And yet, compared to Europe, Indonesia is being confronted with more tremendous challenges not from forgotten achievements, but indeed from home works carried forward from the past, present pressing problems and looming challenges of the future.

Indonesia has neglected many of the problems of its own past. The dangerous thing is that many Indonesians even pretend to have forgotten them. We have yet to work on our nation building of a people inheriting a complex diversity that unites us simply because we are “Indonesia”. This is proven by the endemic violence and conflicts in the various regions.

After a lapse of 13 years of “Reformasi” that put an end to the Soeharto era, we are yet to prove that we can govern ourselves reasonably. To date we are merely working hard to manipulate democracy to the benefit of the “primordial us” rather than the whole nation. We have yet to prove that we are applying democracy to achieve a better life for the masses and justice for everyone.

We cannot afford to be ignorant, especially about the intense competition among nations that will only become fiercer due to the diminishing availability of resources indispensible for the survival of any nation. By the time we have to face the revolutionary world economic situation, we should have put our homework of nation building and governing ourselves democratically in good order.

If Indonesian leaders fail to address these three grand challenges in due time, Indonesians will encounter a crisis that is many times heavier than the one now plaguing Europe, even before the arrival of the mid 21st century. ●