Responsible Citizens

Walking the paved streets of Copenhagen, Denmark, on a beautiful summer’s day that varies between a balmy 25 degrees and a rather nippy 15 degrees Celsius, I wonder what it is that makes a city work for the people who live in it. 

Obviously regulating only 500,000 inhabitants such as the municipality of Copenhagen is vastly different than, say, trying to impose law and order in a sprawling metropolis of more than 10 million people like Jakarta, although I don’t think the number of people plays the only crucial role in getting the system running. Tokyo, for instance, seems to function well despite the city’s population density.

To be sure, having plenty of police officers around helps, especially when the traffic is congested and also to make sure that rules are not broken and the system is followed. But I’m more than convinced that more powerful and effective than any implementation of law and order is self-regulation and a personal sense of need by citizens to stick to the rules. 

It helps a good deal, of course, if the rules are a product of consensus, understood and accepted by all and not through some arbitrary bright ideas shaped by dim politicians who may not have the constituents’ interests at heart. But even more important in getting people to follow the rules is if the system makes it easier and more beneficial if one plays within it rather than outside it. That is to say, it is easier to do good if there is some kind of incentive that goes along with it. 

For example, if our government really wants to encourage less pollution and control the number of cars in the city, the easiest way is to create a road system that supports decent public transportation and create lanes for cyclists, rather than coming up with a system that only worsens the traffic situation for everybody. 

Here in Copenhagen, the streets are equally divided between three types of road users: car drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. Each is entitled to use the designated space safely; the bicyclist is not in danger of being knocked down by a car, while the pedestrian is safe from the horde of speedy cyclists. Moreover, the sidewalks are wide enough for the handicapped to maneuver without posing a danger to themselves or to others. 

This is the opposite of the roads in Jakarta, where every mode of transportation, including foot traffic, fights for every inch of space and where those who cut corners and bend the rules generally get the better deal or buy themselves out of the system. 

The other thing I notice in Denmark, and it’s not necessarily because they’re more health and environmentally conscious (as a matter of fact, a lot of people seem to smoke here and litter a lot in public parks after their picnics), is their respect for energy. The reason being the cost of energy use, especially for heating — and it gets pretty cold here in winter — is high for the average household, thus forcing people to go to great lengths to insulate their homes and minimize their energy use in order to keep their heating and electricity bills down. 

A Danish woman I met actually moved out of the city to live in a passive, or energy-intelligent, house in the suburbs for long-term financial reasons, but the idea of emitting less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is also good for her conscience. Her passive house might have cost a bit more to build initially, but she reaped the dividends on her first heating bill, which was much smaller than at her less-well insulated apartment in Copenhagen. 

The government here also makes it easier for householders, and more profitable for companies, to opt to recycle their waste than just having it incinerated. Companies that send their waste to their local recycling plant need not pay tax on their waste treatment, while the many specially designated garbage bins placed around the city, and the proximity of neighborhood recycling plants, make waste sorting and disposal easy and rewarding for households. Moreover, pennies can be earned by returning cans and bottles to stores. The government also encourages less waste by charging customers for plastic bags at supermarkets, encouraging shoppers to bring their own bags. 

Perhaps, at the end of the day, when there is a higher price to pay for not playing by the system created for the public good, then people become naturally responsible citizens. 

Compare this to Jakarta, where it’s often easier and more effective to break the rules than to follow them.

(Desi Anwar. First published in The Jakarta Globe)

The Burden of Judgment

When I introduced a friend to an acquaintance, a person I barely knew myself, after the initial small talks their topic of conversation turned to religion.  My friend is a very open minded priest - in other words, a person of religion, albeit an unusually enlightened and good humoured one – and with whom I invariably hold interesting and intellectually stimulating conversations.  

The new acquaintance, as it transpired, was obviously a person of strong opinions who disliked institutional religions and extreme fundamentalism of any kind.  I find while there was nothing in her views that I actually disagreed with, however, it was not so much what she said as how she said it that brought the conversation to a rather brusque end.  Her opinions were couched in such judgmental terms that she sounded quite fanatic in her dismissal of religions, which, considering she was chatting to a priest, was not conducive to a fruitful discussion on the subject.

I was rather curious as to how the discussion would develop, however, my friend, faced with such vehemence against the subject, wisely stepped back from the potential verbal minefield and put a brusque end to the conversation.  The woman was obviously not open to any sort of argument on the merits of religions and their history, preferring instead to stick to her passionate rejection and condemnation of various right wing lunatics that have obviously coloured her judgment about the wisdom of any sort of religion.

I was sorry that each found the other insufferable to talk with and thus lost the interest to pursue the exchange to a more common ground and may be even topics in which both share similar interests.  Instead, they simply gave up speaking to one another and moved on to more congenial company.  

Here, I thought, were two educated and articulate people of more or less similar socio-economic-cultural background failing to connect on the most basic level, which is casual conversation, simply because one had a point of view and the other refused to listen because she already formed her own unwavering judgment about the issue.  

My friend became indignant when the attempt to bring the discussion on the path of intellectual argument was met with an airtight obduracy that allowed no room for the expansion of ideas beyond a pugnacious response of dislike and disagreement.  What began with a meeting of minds very quickly degenerated into an emotional friction.  

In theory different perspectives should generate some sort of interesting dialogue, even if neither party accedes to the other person’s opinion on the matter.  Moreover, a well argued point of view could enlighten and add to everybody’s understanding of the matter – or, at the very least, make one appreciate and respect other people’s viewpoints.  

And yet, if a friendly dialog is made impossible because judgment gets in the way of a good discussion or a healthy debate, even among civil company, then what hope is there for a civil and productive dialog to ensue between those who not only have very different opinions, but don’t even share a common vocabulary in which to express them.  Imagine the impact when both sides don’t even bother with asking opinions to begin with but each merely offers opposing judgment masked as truths and which they defend tooth or nail.  Or, in this instance, word-by-word until polite conversation is no longer possible.  And this is merely in the realms of opinions among thinking individuals.  We’re not even venturing into the realm of beliefs.  

So, I thought to myself, what is it that makes people so attached to their opinions, their points of view and their beliefs, as if these are the things that define their very existence?  And why do people get offended, indignant and even angry if their opinions and beliefs are questioned let alone attacked?  Also, what is it about opinions and beliefs that could affect one’s judgment and make one judgmental?

I personally find nothing pleasurable in being judgmental about anything, most of all about other people and their peculiar habits or behaviour.  As a matter of fact, the more peculiar, I find the more interesting.  As to opinions and beliefs, I am highly suspicious of them, simply because there had been so many instances in the past that I had been proven wrong in my assessment of things both through my own experience or learning about them.  

Hence, I have no particular attachment to my opinions and most of the time dispense of them altogether in favour of a less exhausting approach to airing my perspectives, such as for instance, referring to real life experience (which are not opinions as they are not subject to dispute), through studying the works of those more expert in the field or simply by listening to other people.

As to allowing one’s belief to define one’s identity, I find this exercise quite tiresome, especially if one ends up having to defend it.  Whenever I could feel a dogma wagging it’s tail or a belief creeping up inside my head, a little voice would remind me with simple questions such as, ‘what if I’m wrong?’  And, ‘is it really your belief or is it a hand-me-down opinion that you’re too lazy to question?’

So what I try to do is, I seek out knowledge so I don’t have to be burdened with too many unquestioned beliefs, and the times that I lack knowledge, I open my ears to listen and open my mouth to ask why.  In this way at least I can be assured of an engaging dialog.

(Desi Anwar:  first published in Tempo English)