A response to Jokowi’s recent comment
Recently, Jokowi encouraged members of the public to be more proactive in giving feedback, criticisms to the government. The statement invited negative reactions from many political commentators, activists and even the ex-VP Jusuf Kalla; they pointed out the hypocrisy of a regime who has used UU ITE (law on online falsehoods) to silence political rivals/critics. Did Jokowi really mean what he said?
I would say that it was a politically-correct remark that did not signify any actual commitment. This is because the tendency to be suspicious and even hostile toward (internal) criticisms are parts and parcel of the Indonesian, especially the Javanese culture. We mistake criticisms as slander and mockery, a sign of disrespect to the authority.
I grew up in a Javanese family. Among the most famous Javanese sayings, “mikul dhuwur mendhem jero” is most apt to describe how Javanese treat their elders, and the past in general. The saying means that a person should only remember the good deeds of their elders, while at the same time, conceal their mistakes. It is done in the spirit of respecting, and showing reverence to the elders. This reflects the conventional wisdom that is prevalent among most Asian communities, that the elders are always right.
Wisdom is seen to come with age. Hence, while the oldest in the society are perceived as infallible, the younger ones are always seen to be incapable of producing matured insights. We know for sure that this is not always the case.
Sadly, many people, including myself, have reaffirmed the value unquestioningly. We tend to hold back criticisms, albeit relevant, against the elders out of the fear of hurting their feelings; thus being seen as impolite. The younger ones are advised to exercise the attitude of “nrimo”[1]. Little did I realise that the conformity to this value is a tacit agreement to many problematic practices in my home country, and possibly other communities.
Indonesia has many cases of human rights violations that are yet to be resolved; there’s a laundry list: 1965/1966 mass killings, the kidnapping of activists during Suharto’s rule, the military oppression at West Papua, etc. The timidness of current government in resolving the cases, in my opinion, is largely influenced by the saying “mikul dhuwur mendhem jero”. Many Indonesians believe that it is immoral to dig up the less-illustrious moments of the past, that it is of no use to problematise the past; history should be taken at face value. Furthermore, many Indonesians believe that the younger generations will fail to understand the minds and strategies of the past leaders, hence incapable of questioning their motives.
This may explain why the efforts to convict the late President Suharto for corruption charges were futile, until his death in 2008. He also never answered to the accusations of human rights crimes, despite many glaring evidences point out to his involvement. Suharto is, in fact, still celebrated as a war hero and the Father of Infrastructural Developments in Indonesia. Even a satire jab against current government often depicts Suharto saying: “piye, penak jamanku tho?” (Indonesia is better under my rule, right?”).
Jokowi who once was a symbol for democracy and anti-establishment power, failed to live up to people’s hopes and dreams of change. Instead, looking at the current trajectory, it appears that Jokowi would rather ignore the problematic pasts, relegating them into the realms of (irrelevant) history. His tight relationships with generals, business tycoons and seeming indifference to human rights issues really make one doubts whether he is any different than his predecessors. His conception of economic prosperity as the end goal of democracy makes one think if he is actually the ideological heir of Suharto.
So I shall remain sceptical in addressing Jokowi’s comment. I can only be convinced that the regime welcomes criticism when human rights activists that have been either deported and/or on self-imposed exiles are finally being listened to and granted legal protection. I can only be convinced when Jokowi stops building dalliances with human rights abusers, and concretely addresses the Aksi Kamisan activists’ concerns (among many others).
In the meantime, citizens and anyone at the grassroots level ought to reform this critic-avoiding culture. Instead of sugarcoating problems, we ought to emerge as individuals who can troubleshoot issues and point them out in a tactful manner.
[1] A Javanese term: a passive acquiescent to fate
