Overseas Think Tank for Indonesia

Compassionate democracy: Myth or reality?

Previously published by The Jakarta Post

Opinion, Saturday, April 26, 2008

Jennie S. Bev, San Francisco

Democracy in its simplest definition refers to rule by the majority, in which their voice determines decisions. In other words, this definition implies that minorities have very little, or even no voice at all.

While there are instances of “voiceless” minorities, interestingly, this may not appear to be so in certain circumstances. In today’s Indonesia, those belonging to fundamentalist groups – both theologically and politically, are rather small in number but have been loud and influential on the mainstream. This is both mind-boggling and hard to comprehend.

Does democracy truly mean the majority dominates the minorities leaving the latter with very little breathing room? If it does, is “compassionate democracy” simply a myth or even a legend? How should minorities react? Even more importantly, how should those who belong to the majority behave toward minorities? With those exceptional fundamentalist minorities’ strong voices affecting the majority, how should we interpret Indonesian society and its respect and acceptance of differences?

Ideally, democracy should be exercised carefully, because, without guidelines, it can easily be fertile ground for the distorted practice of democracy. After all, it is based on a very simple premise: the majority wins and the minorities must follow whatever is decided.

For politicians, this drawback is an advantage that can be used over and over, and which could eventually culminate in the politics of amnesia, a terminology coined by Terry Eagleton. And without careful democratic practice, compassion toward any group, and more importantly any minority, may not be exercised at all.

It would be saddening if “compassionate democracy” were merely an oxymoron, a terminology in contradiction, even though it would attest to Aristotle’s notion that democracy is probably the rule of the mediocre majority. Take the May 1998 tragedy, for example, when orchestrated mayhem by puppeteers whose faces are yet to be unveiled resulted in massive casualties. Many of the victims and survivors belonged to the majority. There was no doubt about that.

However, this orchestrated incident targeted groups of minorities, particularly those of Chinese ethnicity, by using symbols of the majority. The fact that such a minority group was targeted mercilessly did not appear to be of significant regret. An in-depth investigation and effort to bring the perpetrators to justice is still far from being successfully accomplished, because after all, in many people’s simple minds, the minority should submit to the majority. Isn’t that what “democracy” is about? Let’s think.

That democracy is “the rule of the mediocre majority” has been used as a weapon by those who believe that it is truly so. Thus, ideologically, it is a fallacy. Is it really so? For instance, this misconception has been used by fundamentalists of every kind to substantiate that their ideology is the best, as it would terminate such a mediocre system of government. Hizbut Tahrir has been advocating worldwide a caliphate by recruiting people in power and those who might rise to power. It is interesting to note that their number is very small in quantity, yet they are so loud.

The “upside down” rationale that has been used by some people for continuous politics of amnesia against those who belong to certain minority groups, such as those of Chinese ethnicity, is both cruel and inhumane. Chinese descendants have been stereotyped as rich and corrupt, thus any individual who belongs to this group does not deserve any compassion. After all, they are a minority, thus they must submit to the majority’s wishes.

It is also commonly heard that individuals of such resourcefulness do not need any consideration and when some of them behave unethically, fingers tend to point to the whole group and the whole ethnicity, not only the individual in question. And whenever there has been a catastrophic incident, either natural or man-made, those who belong to minority groups tend to be belittled with the argument, “We the majority also suffer, why not cater to our needs instead?”

In other words, compassion toward individuals of minority groups does not come unconditionally. Just like a raped woman who wore a miniskirt or a liver cirrhosis patient who “deserves” to be in such pain because of chosen lifestyle.

Being a member of a minority group comes with such double, triple or even quadruple standards. It is too high a standard for one to reach, even if the person is exemplary in many areas.

I find such a harsh reality for being a member of a minority group heartbreaking. Democracy in Indonesia has been tarnished by the so-called “equality dogma.”

Unfortunately, instead of the minority groups who insist upon equality of treatment, the majority oftentimes uses the “majority rules” doctrine far too often, leaving very small space for minorities to exist, or even to breathe, without having to bend.

Sure, a diverse society like Indonesia is hard to manage, but its size is, contrary to popular belief, very manageable. It is only slightly less than three times the size of Texas. And if most people think that the politicians have been having a lot of fun without showing any political will to make meaningful changes in protecting the safety and security of those who belong to minority groups, then it is time for all of us to shake the tree to its roots and demand compassionate democracy.

The writer is a columnist based in Northern California. She supports signing a petition for a new peaceful Indonesia at PeacefulIndonesia.com.

This article is dedicated to all victims and survivors of crimes against humanity whoever and wherever they are in the world. We are born as human beings with good balance of mind and heart elements, but for some reasons we have grown apart from our compassionate heart. It’s time to return and ponder upon what we have done to make the world a more compassionate place to live.

Artikel ini didedikasikan bagi semua korban dan survivors kriminalitas atas kemanusiaan siapa pun dan di mana pun mereka berada di seluruh dunia. Kita semua dilahirkan sebagai makhluk berbudi dengan unsur-unsur intelek dan afektif yang seimbang. Namun, karena realitas kehidupan, kita sudah mulai melupakan hati yang berbudi dan berakhlak tinggi. Sudah waktunya untuk kembali ke hati yang murni dan mengambil kembali dunia yang sudah semakin jauh dari perikemanusiaan ini. Sekarang, saat ini juga.

Note: Show our solidarity to victims and survivors of May 1998 Tragedy in Indonesia by signing the petition at PeacefulIndonesia.com.

Banality and Compassion
by Jennie S. Bev, San Francisco
Also published on AsiaBlogging.com

Modern lifestyle is known to be quite monotonous and routine. Many people work, live, and even breathe on cruise-control auto-pilot mode. Those who follow the rules are oftentimes stamped as “good gatekeepers” and those who despise and challenge the rules are known as “rebels” and “dissidents.” Just like a driving recommendation by California State’s Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV), in which a driver must follow the current freeway traffic speed to avoid accidents regardless of the official speed limit, living has been more or less quite like that.

Living a drone-like existence might not be inevitable, but human beings are, by nature, restless creatures, who would need to find a balance between mind and heart, between righteousness and wickedness, between banality and pertinence, and between savagery and compassion. When it is time to choose, oftentimes theology comes into play. Without a balanced perspective between intellect and affection in understanding theology, which is oftentimes regarded as the “divine voices”, many people have been victimized by dogmatic elements, leaving helplessness and restlessness to widespread even deeper.

The phrase “banality of evil” was coined by Hannah Arendt in 1963 to describe the notion of ordinary people who have consciously or subconsciously accepted the premises of their state and participated actively without questioning the overlaying principles. A corrupt and self-righteous world that we live in today is a clear example of how the majority of human beings have accepted this concept without much reservation, or at least, without much contemplation on the true purposes of life.

And it is saddening that in this 21st century, in which humankind has proven the heresy by Galileo that the earth is not the center of the universe to be true, to hear from those who are fluent and call themselves “experts” in theology approving the killings of and hating our neighbors as if they were the only ones who are entitled to the world. Good thing is, we do not need to simply be silent and accept banality as the norm to follow without any reservation. After all, human beings are both intellect and affective beings. We think and feel at the same time and we have strong empathy towards others, whoever they are.

Karen Armstrong, a prolific author in religion once wrote in The Spiral Staircase (pg. 293),

“The one and only test of a valid religious idea, doctrinal statement, spiritual experience, or devotional practice was that it must lead directly to practical compassion. If your understanding of the divine made you kinder, more empathetic, and impelled you to express this sympathy in concrete acts of loving-kindness, this was good theology. But if your notion of God made you unkind, belligerent, cruel, or self-righteous, or if it led you to kill in God’s name, it was bad theology”.

And faith, whatever ours is, was designed to unfold our childlike innocent, positive, and upbeat qualities, regardless of our age and experiences. Good theology would assist in our journey to find our inner child. A child who is accepting to goodness and believes in the goodness of others and him or herself. After all, we were designed to operate on old-fashioned manual mode: by thinking, reflecting, and contemplating, not on cruise-control automated mode.

Whether you believe in Judgment Day, Reincarnation, or Nirvana, think before saying or doing anything. Those Neuro Linguistic Programmers (NLP) might call it re-wiring our mind through thoughts. Whatever you believe, do not disappoint yourself now or later. “You only live once, if you do it right, once is enough,” said the late silver screen actress, playwright, and screenwriter siren Mae West.

Today’s clashes of things, a terminology coined by the famous and, at the same time, notorious Samuel Huntington, might not need to occur in the first place provided that we were aware of the choices we could have made as the most intelligent creature on planet earth. And it is still not too late to criticize ourselves and to make amends when it is still possible. The clashes can and will be stopped because there are no other alternatives if we are to prevail as human race without being self-destructive.

It might be hard to criticize ourselves without criticizing others, but it can be done with awareness and peaceful opened heart and mind. Any preconceived notion of anything should not be used against our future, but should be consciously constructed to channel our inner wisdom. It certainly does not require a degree in theology to practice good theology. A simple common sense would do just fine.

At last, do not preach, just do good things. Be good ambassadors of our faiths and communities. Be aware and be mindful of consequences. And whenever you are in doubt, do not choose banality. Choose compassion.

Note: Show our solidarity to victims and survivors of May 1998 Tragedy in Indonesia by signing the petition at PeacefulIndonesia.com.