, The Jakarta Post , Jakarta | Thu, 06/01/2006 1:41 PM | Opinion
J. Soedjati Djiwandono, Jakarta
Indonesians tend to be blindly fanatical about Pancasila, the national ideology. Pancasila is comprised of five principles: Belief in one God, Indonesian nationalism, humanity, democracy, and social justice. Indeed, the preamble to the 1945 Constitution that embodies the ideology is so sacrosanct that it is not to be the subject of reform. That stricture is the main source of a tragedy that has made the future of this nation uncertain.
As far as the current formulation of Pancasila is concerned, there is probably a national consensus on it. That, however, is only true today because the original draft of the 1945 Constitution, called the Jakarta Charter, was drastically changed on the eve of the proclamation of Indonesia's independence. Originally the phrase ""Belief in one God"" was followed by seven words that translated as ""with the obligation to implement Islamic Sharia by its adherents."" The omission meant an essentially secular constitution was inaugurated on Aug. 18, 1945.
Unfortunately, there was never a debate on the issue of whether Indonesia would be a secular or religious (Islamic) state, except in the Constituent Assembly that resulted form the first general elections in 1955, which was to decide on the consitution of the country. Nationalists won a vote on the re-institution of the ""seven words"" and they were left out of the constitution.
It was, however, the beginning of a continuous tragedy. In the first years of independence to the mid 1960s there was a series of Islamic rebellions -- in West Java, Aceh, South Sulawesi, South Kalimantan, West Sumatra -- all struggling for the establishment of an Islamic state. While these violent attempts were crushed, it did not mean Indonesia was a secular state.
Islamic aspirations have remained strong. At the onset of the reform era after the resignation of President in Soeharto in 1998, there were efforts to revive the ""seven words"" of the Jakarta Charter, but they failed. So too did efforts to reinsert Islamic principles into Article 9 of the 1945 Constitution, which provides religious freedom.
Then, also in the era of reform, they adopted a manner of decision making in the House of Representatives (DPR) known as ""without voting"", on the understanding that the majority (mostly Muslims) would have their way, with or without voting. This was first applied to the enactment of 2003 National System of Education Law, which made religious education compulsory at all levels of schooling, a move that was certainly against freedom of worship.
At the moment, in the offing are the bill on pornography and a draft amendment of criminal law, both of which are rooted in the Islamic law of sharia. That system of decision making would essentially amount to a tyranny by the majority. Should a bill be passed that is against human rights it would also be against the constitution.
Indeed, while it has never been openly admitted, there has never been a common understanding of Pancasila among Indonesians of different religions, particularly in regards to the first principle.
As an open ideology, by definition Pancasila cannot be directly implemented except through legislation. No law has ever been enacted that every citizen of the state must believe in God. Yet the Marriage Law requires one to marry according to one's religion. So implied in this law is not only that every citizen -- at least one that intends to get married - must believe in God, but also that belief in God must be realized through the profession and practice of a religion.
To enforce religion is against freedom of worship. Worse still, it cultivates a seed of hypocrisy: an atheist would have to claim to believe in a religion in order to get married.
To make matters worse, although the legal basis for this has never been made clear, everyone has to claim to embrace only one of the ""recognized"" religions. Ironically, Judaism, the oldest monotheistic faith, is not one of them. Recently however, though again with no clear legal basis, President Yudhoyono stated that Indonesia no longer made a difference between recognized and unrecognized religions.
While there is a consensus on the wording or formulation of Pancasila, however, most people would quickly realize there is no common understanding of how Pancasila should be interpreted. On the contrary, people remain ambivalent and take advantage of that ambivalence. When asked if Indonesia is a secular or religious (Islamic) state, the usual answer is ""neither secular nor Islamic"".
On the other hand, non-Muslims would claim that under Pancasila, they have freedom of worship. Many Muslims would like to see Islamic law be the source of national law. Hence the continuous clash of values that could make national unity simply a myth, for the nation is not bound by a set of common values. This is the source of the constant trend towards national disintegration.
People of different religions have been encouraged to engage in inter-faith dialogues. These dialogues have mainly aimed to promote mutual understanding, mutual tolerance and brotherhood. All of these sound like noble objectives.
However, those aims, however noble they may sound, are never enough. Mutual understanding, mutual tolerance and brotherhood could be interpreted to mean that we should understand and tolerate our neighbors even if their behavior violates human rights. We need to use inter-religious dialogs to develop common, universal human values.
It has taken mankind centuries to respect human rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was only adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1946. It will take a long process of learning to develop common universal human values.
The writer, a political analyst, holds a PhD from the London School of Economics and Political Science.
No comments:
Post a Comment