Public debate: An answer to controversies

Mochtar Buchori ,  Jakarta   |  Wed, 04/16/2008 12:31 PM  |  Opinion

Whenever a controversy arises, many among us tend to side with one of the contending parties. The society is then divided into two camps, each feeling antagonistic toward the other. This division may last long, but it can also be short. It depends upon the gravity of the dispute.

The controversy about the format of the Indonesian state, i.e. whether it should be a unitary republic or a federation, has lasted fairly long. It started in 1945, before our independence was proclaimed. And it really died down only in 2004, after the bill on regional autonomy was ratified by the Parliament and became the 2004 law on regional government.

Other controversies do not last that long. The controversy on national examinations started in 1976, if I remember correctly, and at this moment it is still very much alive but beginning to show signs of waning. There are signs the public is tiring of it. I think it will dissolve itself within three to five years. This is just my estimate.

At this moment we have a small controversy on the Lembaga Sensor Film (Film Censorship Board, LSF). The issue that is hotly debated is whether the board should be left alone in carrying out its present method of censoring films, or whether a less crude method should be employed.

So far this controversy does not create social tension that is as tense as the one created by the controversy on the format of the Indonesian state. Nor is this controversy as divisive as the one on national examinations. And the most wonderful thing of all is that the contending parties show readiness to talk and to exchange views. After trading several hot arguments a group of filmmakers made initial steps to have public debate on the issue.

On March 21, 2008, a public discussion was held. The purpose of this discussion was to examine whether it is necessary to find an alternate method for censoring films. Both the protagonists and antagonists of the LSF were present at this public discussion.

A new format of thinking about the issue emerged from this discussion. Sri Sultan Hamengku Buwono X, who acted as the keynote speaker, mentioned three issues interrelated in the present controversy. These are the issue of improving the present social, cultural and moral state of the nation, the issue of producing films that can stimulate the public toward self-improvement and the issue of protecting the public against harmful influences that may come from films they are watching.

This keynote address was followed by remarks from a panel of nine people representing the LSF, filmmakers, film actors, the press and social critics.

From the remarks made by the panel I have the impression that the contending sides do not cherish positions that are absolute and unalterable. Everybody seemed to be open for new ideas that could lead toward dissolution of the dispute. The road toward dissolving the controversy is already visible.

As I see it, if the three issues are pictured as three circles of different sizes, one circumventing the other in a concentric manner, then putting the issue of national revitalization as the main frame of reference will make it very clear how to proceed.

Make films that are both educational and entertaining, and examine each film finished on the basis of a yardstick derived from the agreed-upon guiding points of how to be educational, how to be entertaining and what constitutes "harmful impacts".

I know that in reality the solution will not be that easy. But the direction toward dissolving the controversy is indicated already by this public discussion. The remaining discussions to be held should be designed to clarify further details.

Why should controversies be dissolved?

Because in a free society like ours controversies will arise no matter what we do. Controversies arise from differences in interpreting phenomena of reality. And there is no need to avoid controversy. As John F. Kennedy (1917-1963) put it in his State of the Union Address in 1963, "The unity of freedom has never relied on uniformity of opinion".

This does not mean, however, that we should let each controversy grow unchecked. This is dangerous. If we are not careful, a controversy can become more and more bitter and divisive. As English writer and clergyman Charles Caleb Colton (1780-1832) put it, "Wars of opinion, as they have been the most destructive, are also the most disgraceful conflicts, being appeals from right to might and from argument to artillery".

If conducted properly, public debate can become an instrument to dissolve controversies. In a public debate we are forced to think, not just to agree or disagree. A good debate is one in which each side expresses its position and the arguments supporting it, while the other side pays full attention to what is being said. A debate in which each side merely defends its position and fiercely attacks the position of the other side will never solve the dispute. Such argumentation never convinces anyone to think contrary to his inclinations. In a good debate, according to French philosopher, novelist, playwright and journalist Albert Camus (1913-1960), both sides accept the maxim that "Somebody has to have the last word. If not, every argument can be opposed by another and we'd never be done with it".

I feel that we still have to learn the art of debating. We know how to argue, but we do not quite know how to debate.

The writer holds a PhD in education from Harvard University.

Copyright © 2008 The Jakarta Post - PT Bina Media Tenggara. All Rights Reserved.