Public Officials’ Sense of Might, Right And Impunity Goes Back a Long Way

This is the first Jakarta Globe article in which I engaged in some discussions with its long-term commenters. Many of them are great, easy to talk to, and in fact, I now have great relationships with some of them, enjoy chatting with them once in a while over lunch.

Oh yeah, also the first article that was inspired by a Twitter feed.

Public Officials’ Sense of Might, Right And Impunity Goes Back a Long Way
Yohanes Sulaiman | March 28, 2011

Early on Saturday, on Twitter, I read the news about how Roy Suryo, Democratic Party lawmaker, managed to delay the 6:15 a.m. flight of Lion Air to Yogyakarta. Even though his ticket was for the 7:45 a.m. flight, he refused to leave the plane, demanding to stay on board, the twitter user said. In the end, Suryo apologized and left the plane, claiming Lion Air was responsible for the mistake.

Coupled with other horror stories on how public officials and lawmakers abused their position to demand unwarranted privileges or commit other conduct unbecoming a public servant, it is not surprising people are asking: “What is wrong with Indonesia?”

It is not far-fetched to argue that the problem originates from the mentality of our public officials.

The “I am never wrong” mentality is due to the fact that throughout history, Indonesian officials have only rarely been held accountable for their conduct. One reason was Indonesian culture holding any high officials in high regard. Another was colonialism.

Of course it is very easy to blame colonialism for everything wrong in Indonesia: from massive poverty, lack of education and disregard to the rule of law, to Indonesia’s backwardness.

On the one hand, it cannot be denied that the Dutch and other imperial powers exploited Indonesia, carting off so much of its wealth to Europe and leaving Indonesia mired in poverty and saddled with huge debts at the 1949 Round Table Conference. But on the other hand, it is clear that local officials also share part of the blame. The Dutch were only able to exploit Indonesia through their cooperation with local officials, the elites that managed to line their pockets at the expense of the masses.

The book “Max Havelaar,” which is set during the implementation of the Cultivation System (Tanam Paksa), noted the wanton abuse of power by local regents and how the Dutch East Indies government protected abusers of power. The Dutch didn’t really care about how the regents exploited the population, as long as they were loyal and the treasury was overflowing with money. Unfortunately, this mechanism turned out to be the biggest colonial legacy in Indonesian politics.

Colonialism taught the Indonesians that the Dutch would keep protecting any official, no matter how bad his conduct, as long as he cooperated with the Dutch government. In essence, it was a lesson in totalitarianism: officials need not be accountable to the people. The only people who matter are your superiors, who can fire you at a moment’s notice. From the colonial days, public officials were not there to serve the people, but to serve the masters that would protect them when things went badly.

The other lesson, related to the first one, was: “might makes right.”

Before the arrival of the Dutch, there was no kingdom that completely ruled Java, let alone a country as big as Indonesia. Even the mighty Sultan Agung of Mataram was unable to completely pacify his kingdom, especially after his defeat at Batavia in the late 1620s. As a result, Javanese kings had to rely on the policy of deliberation to achieve consensus ( musyawarah-mufakat ), to mollify any possible critics of planned policy, as many were capable of launching a rebellion.

This was Indonesian-style democracy: the inability of any ruler to dominate all of his opponents created some sort of safeguard that prevented wanton abuse of power. The Dutch, through their relatively efficient organization and firepower, managed to bypass this barrier and could rule without musyawarah-mufakat. This reinforced the first lesson, that as long as an official was backed by a powerful organization, the chances of him getting overthrown were miniscule.

These lessons were further reinforced during the authoritarian rule of both President Sukarno and President Suharto — during which only those with the necessary connections could achieve a top position — and became ingrained in the Indonesian mind-set.

Not surprisingly, with cronyism as the only qualification required to hold a position, professionalism and the rule of law were totally undermined and became irrelevant. Indonesian officialdom now has the aura of impunity.

This mentality has two major effects. First, there is a huge chasm between public officials and the people they are supposed to serve, leading officials to behave egregiously. Officials consider themselves not mere public servants, but part of the nobility, the elite to be adored and served at a moment’s notice. With this in mind, it is not surprising that so many people complain about public officials and members of parliament being completely out of touch with regular people. They think they live in their own kingdoms.

The second — and most worrisome — effect is that since the rule of law has since long been undermined and easy to bypass, provided that an official believes he or she has enough supporters, he or she can attempt to change rules at will. Never mind using the proper channels.

In Indonesia, might still makes right, so it is important for someone who is seriously interested in running for public office to have recourse to a strong organization that is capable of committing acts of violence or at least threaten political opponents.

We can see the excesses already, such as in the case of violent, religious-based mass organizations that have recently attacked minorities such as the Ahmadiyah sect, with the aim of imposing their will.

Coupled with this, the impeachment discourse being promoted by certain groups is also worrisome. Impeachment, instead of being a last-resort tool to limit presidential abuse of power, is being used to coerce the president into doing things that only a very small part of the population supports.

We should remember that democracy only works when everybody is equal before the law and protected from abuse. That includes abuse by public officials.

---------

 

BrahmaPutra

1:13pm Mar 28, 2011

Interesting article although i would have thought that the present governmentally supported oppression , stealing of rights , human dignity , property and MURDER of Ahmadias would be a more pertinent starting point for such an article ! after all we have a religious affairs minister who is a certified fanatical Muslim who wants to introduce Sharia law here.

SirAnthonyKnown-Bender

1:19pm Mar 28, 2011

Colonialism plays its part for sure and Javanese post-colonial imperialism still thrives. It has been 60 years now though and other factors perhaps hold equal sway. In my view, the arrogance and fatalism of the dominant monotheism (I think we all know to which faith I'm referring ) have combined with the inflexible class structures of the country's previous religion of choice, namely Hinduism, a faith whose attitudes are still embedded deeply in the culture.  

TGIF

3:45pm Mar 28, 2011

The “I am never wrong” mentality is due to the fact that throughout history, Indonesian officials have only rarely been held accountable for their conduct. Even Indonesian parents are all ALIKE...Same difference lah.

Yohanes-Sulaiman

11:57pm Mar 28, 2011

@Brahma: I am focusing more on mundane things , to show how officials' attitudes are internalized, making it evident in daily affairs. Focusing on Ahmadiyah will just distract the article from the main point, which is the behavioral problems of officials.

@SirAnthony: Religion does not necessarily cause unprofessionalism. There are many Moslem professionals and capable Moslem civil servants. Bung Hatta and Gus Dur are just two examples. The problem, I think, is the fact that these abusers of power still have the Feodal mentality, reinforced by the experiences under colonialism and authoritarianism.

@TGIF: Not sure about parents. Singapore has almost the same "respect the elder" sulture as Indonesia, but they manage to create an effective civil service as the rule of law is strictly implemented.

DrDez

6:32am Mar 29, 2011

Just look at the make up of the first RI ministerial line up. Freedom was attained using the support of the Indonesian Underworld - without their local organisation the revolution would not have taken place. this is similarly true for Islamic organisations. For that support many 'bosses' started their new political lives bringing with them the corrupt ethos - Right from the start RI had 'built in' corruption. That has just grown as the bosses expanded empires, new emerge dynastys based on wealth etc. The real sadness is the lost opportunity in 1998 to really take a forward political step. But almost all those in power had much to lose (as today)so in reality we pay lip service and little has changed. Thus real change as always lies in the hands of the people - which is why we are seeing radical Islam taking over. Why? Because they (for all their dangers) are the ones in Indonesia right now who are active, they are stealing the activist ground and with religion once you have created a fervor hate is just a small step. Hate drives mobs - mobs make armies - armies make changes... The connundrum is that because politics are tied in with religious groups mobs also mean votes. Is this the reason for inactivity by the govt? To face the mob who is destroying Indonesia is to face non re-election and the lost oportunity that brings.. Somewhat of an imp arse for the politicians really...Not one I can see a solution to either.

 

BrahmaPutra

7:33am Mar 29, 2011

Ok, Another thing that has puzzled me is the inability for people in any position here to admit any mistakes, no matter if the proof is right in front of their faces, they will not admit to any wrong on their part. You have any idea where that attitude comes from ? Some friends and I have discussed this at length, but a different perspective would be appreciated.

devine

9:09am Mar 29, 2011

BrahmaPutra. We Indonesians are "great" people and therefore can't possibly be wrong. If one thinks we are wrong they just have an other perspective of things.... :-)

 

enakajah

9:33am Mar 29, 2011

I continually see reference to Max Havilaar's book in as an authoritative version of the Dutch in Indonesia. Having read it several time I found it rather superficial and of little real historical benefit. It wasn't even a good read.
With regard to the article's subject matter, it is very easy to blame the Dutch for their colonial excesses. These were documented in excruciating detail by J.J. Stockdales book "The Island of Java" 1811. This documents what the British found when they were fighting the French and subsequently took over in Indonesia. It is easy to blame but not entirely true.


The French defeated and colonized the Dutch and took possession of Indonesia, the British subsequently defeated the French here and set about trying to undo the excesses of the Dutch colonial powers. See the related book "The conquest of Java" which is in fact about beating the French and trying to establish an indonesian system of law and order for the Indonesians. Left to their own devices the British would have installed a legal and parliamentary system similar to the Indian systems and perhaps things would have been different here. Or perhaps not. ( These are simply historic comments…. Please no flaming or screaming and yelling history is fairly clear on these points.)


What is very often forgotten is that before the Dutch arrived in force, the sultanates had been fighting for so long and so desperately that the population had been decimated to less than 14 million. The Island was starving to death because there were not enough people to work the land to feed the population. The Dutch took advantage of the intercine wars and the results we all can read about about from the documented history of the VOC.

This however is not the cause of the attitude of the politicians in this country. It adds to it but prior to Dutch colonialism, this attitude was here for centuries. It is what helped build the Sri Wijaya empire reaching through the whole of Malaysia to Cambodia Thailand and Vietnam. It is what built the Majapahit empire and many others.

The attitude of politicians being leaders and not servants is nothing new and not Indonesian. Almost all countries in Asia have the same cultural attitude. Unlike the west that works on straight line logic, Asia works on concentric circles of harmony. encompassing and absorbing a problems rather than addressing it head on. In turn respect for elders is highly ingrained from family to school to work to politics and as such the politicians do not see themselves as servants but as leaders. This too is encouraged by the population and the cultural mores of Asia. It is not unique.


It is however changing. With the access to information that is available today and the influences of a materialistic world, the newer generations are baulking at this ideology and cultural rigor and wishing to see democracy work as it does in other countries. They wish to see politicians as servants not rulers. But with Democracy being less than 20 years old in this country what can one expect in it's early days?


The only way this can be done is by using the vote and through education. It will take generations to modify as the respect for elders is a deeply ingrained sociological way of life with family as the heart of the culture.

Until this type of attitude is grown out of the population ( the belief that politicians are leaders ) I believe it is here to stay. Unless there are mechanisms installed by solid men and women in power to address these excesses it will be a long time until things change. Being held to account is not what these people expect and they are a lot smarter at making sure it does not happen than one would think. What happened to Sri Mulyani springs to mind. In order to defeat this way of thinking, new solid parties of educated technocrats are required and this will take many years and many brave people to develop.


Lets hope it can be done before the religious parties drag the country into a miasma of islamic laws and back into the dark ages of complete subservience.

Yohanes-Sulaiman

9:37am Mar 29, 2011

@DrDez: Robert Cribb wrote a really great book titled "Gangsters and Revolutionaries." The book argues that many of the "pejuang" in 1945 were local toughs, gangsters, etc. In fact, an analysis of the British reports in 1945-46 noted the prevalence of gangsters/robbers that committed so many crimes under the banner of "perjuangan." That completely undermined Sukarno-Hatta-Sjahrir's efforts to show the Allies that Indonesians were capable to govern the country and bring peace. Not surprisingly, PM Sjahrir, Amir Sjarifuddin, and Urip Sumoharjo. tired of these uncontrolled criminal elements, created the Tentara Keamanan Rakyat to bring some semblance of order. So it is not that they did not care or realize how damaging the "underworld" influence to the state-building. Though by the 1950s, Presiden Sukarno courted the underworld elements, especially to prevent the Masjumi and the PSI from taking over the country. I would love to talk more about this, but this will totally derail our discussion and I think, should Jakarta Globe allow it, I should write an opinion piece on that issue.


@Brahma: If you admit your mistake, it will show weaknesses, that you have a vulnerable point. Also keep in mind that by saying "sorry," you are implicitly acknowledging that the other side is equal to you in status. One striking example happened a few years ago. I am not going to name names here, but the person is a very famous person. He and a colleague met a youth from a certain ethnic group. Usually the famous person was very egalitarian and friendly, but this time he was treating the youth like dirt and the youth was just nodding in silence.

After the youth left, his colleague demanded to know why he treated that youth badly, even though that's the first time they met the youth. The famous person smacked his head and reply, "damn, I still have trouble getting rid of my feudal mentality." Apparently his social status is much higher than the youth, so he automatically treated the youth badly to maintain his prestige of having the higher caste.


@devine: That's a good way to state it.

Comello

9:59am Mar 29, 2011

@Yohanes
I think colonialism took advantage of the existing mindset, it did not create it. A few thousand Europeans were certainly not able to create a mindset favourable to their ends in the heads of millions. Especially when you take into account that real 'colonialism' only started after 1800, when the VOC went belly-up and the Dutch state took over. Before that, it had just been a - cruel - business affair, conducted by the first 'multinational'; the VOC never had any hardcore colonial ambitions. Furthermore, the Dutch state only 'ruled' the Indies for a relatively 'short' time. The Javanese Sultanates were only subjugated after the 1825-1830 Java War and Lombok, Sumbawa, Bali etc. were conquered even later (hardly the '350 years of Dutch etc.' that were rammed into Indonesian schoolkids' heads).

No apologizing for the bad effects of colonialism, but the opportunity - the mindset - was there and I find it hard to believe that the people of the various kingdoms and sultanates would have been much better off if they had continued to enjoy the economic and social policies of their 'enlightened' rulers of the day.

Colonialism did not teach Indonesians anything they did not already believed in or had experienced for ages.

And if the existing mindset was largely responsible for the authority-revering and fatalistic attitude, we have to include the then-present cultural and religious superstitions as the Bender states.

In the current day, the Islamic fascists are just applying the same tactics: enforcing subjugation to a 'higher' power, exploiting the still prevalent mindset.

Yohanes-Sulaiman

10:26am Mar 29, 2011

@enakajah: I can put another book like the ones you suggested, but I thought "Max Havelaar" is more popular and accessible to most reader (even though I doubt that many people had read it, they just knew that it exist).

You raised lots of good points and I won't deny that you are right: the culture was there way before the Dutch. I think, however, there was a safety valve, the musyawarah-mufakat, that exists thanks to the inability of the kings to completely dominate everyone. In China, robust bureaucracy allowed the creation of centralized totalitarian government. Indonesia, or rather Java, didn't have strong bureaucratic culture.


The musyawarah-mufakat to some degree forced leaders to behave, to take into account nobles' opinion, not unlike the Magna Carta. It was still far from democracy, but it was close, and at least it prevented authoritarianism. Sultans such as Amangkurat I tried to break this system, and resulted in Trunajaya rebellion that ended up with the destruction of Kotagede.


In short, pre-colonial era, power was decentralized. Of course, that didn't prevent stupid rulers from abusing their subjects, doing stupid things, etc., but it would result in their fall from power (thus the old Javanese expression that a keraton only lasts for 100 years). The Dutch, however, destroyed the safety valve, allowing horrid leaders to stay on top.


While India is always touted as the example of the British' success in democratizing its colonies, India also has tons of problems that it needs to solve, from the "Permit Raj" to religious conficts, not to mention horrid treatments on women and lower caste people. There was a great article in the NYT on how the "old India" still exists in their treatment of women.


Of course, just go to Africa and the Middle East to see how the former British colonies are also adept in destroying their own countries, most famously, Zimbabwe.

@Comello: You are right. Without colonialism, the "natives" still did great jobs exploiting people, enslaving and selling many of their own brethens, discriminating, etc. So, in a sense, you are completely correct that colonialism took the advantage of existing mindset.


As I wrote, however, colonialism's biggest impact lies in the fact that you get additional resources from outside, notably the armed backing, allowing you to commit MORE bad stuffs without repercussion. In general, if a leader was really bad, people had the options of either moving out (happened a lot in Imperial China, explaining to some degree, the rapid spread of the Chinese population to the Southeast Asia) or rally to another leader, who while would still do horrid stuffs to you, but at least more acceptable. E.g. the Chinese got rid of the Ming Dynasty and flocked to the Manchus. The colonial powers, however, prevented the "natural changes" to occur, such as maintaining the rules of horrid kings and destroying any possible opposition. Of course, it is not clear if bandits such as Untung Surapati or holymen such as Pangeran Diponegoro, might have done a better job in ruling the country. Still, one fact is clear: there was no possibility that the alternative ruler would exist to replace the really terrible-ruler.


I hope I make my point clear. A self-promotion: you can also visit our facebook at http://www.facebook.com/#!/ConflictandPeace to read some analysis regarding unfolding events in the Middle East.

BrahmaPutra

11:07am Mar 29, 2011

This article and the follow up discussion has been illuminating. Thank you all.

jchay

11:37am Mar 29, 2011

Thanks Yohanes for the article, and the follow up discussion. I think the key here as you have stated: "We should remember that democracy only works when everybody is equal before the law and protected from abuse." When nobody (ie President, FPI, or even the law enforcers themselves) are above the law, order is established and prosperity stays.

enakajah

11:58am Mar 29, 2011

Pak Yohanes, You are definitely right about the Safety vale being taken away. No doubt about it. The British had a long history of leaving an administrations behind rather than a military power. From my dealing with a number of people in India in advocacy they are uniformly say that the one thing the British did leave behind was a legal system that works. They do not say it works well however and of course there are many problems both there and in Africa. But in the end there are legal systems to assit if use properly. Most other left the army in command and the disasters are unfolding today. However the point I was trying to make is that Colonialism is not the heart of the problem. Nor is it is a uniquely Indonesian problem either. I do not believe it is simply the political leaders that create this situation but Asian culture from the very grass roots. Nor do I think it is necessarily all bad either. It is a system that everyone understands and lives day to day.

Respect is given to age from families upwards. All over asia it is the same. It is the family core and people understand it. They live closely entrenched in this culture of family unity and leadership. This in turn it taken on by people with the desire to lead the country and the attitude goes with them that they are senior and to be respected no matter what and that they cannot be held accountable. This is where the respect turns to arrogance.

Today people are much more aware and expect better. This family type attitude is no longer what is required in government. People wish more from their representatives as representatives of the people not as unaccountable leaders and it will take a very long time and some very strong and determined people to change this. It will happen though. It will just take time. Do we have enough though?

By the way you may be surprised by how many very good books are available in the books shops today, not hidden but they are not necessarily on the best sellers section. The recent English edition of Serat Centhini is another example. What a stunning read that is about the coming of age of Java.

enakajah

12:18pm Mar 29, 2011

JCHAY, dead right.... look at the headlines in today's papers to see perfect examples of what Pak Yohanes is saying.....Marzuki saying MGO's should not take action as they are not representative of the people. PDI-P and the statements about Independents running as president with a Mother Daughter dynastic tag team in on the fray. It seems every week there is someone sticking his hand up in government to display the arrogance of their belief they are never wrong and should not be questioned.