, The Jakarta Post , Jakarta | Mon, 09/18/2006 7:52 AM | Opinion
Aleksius Jemadu, Bandung
There is no doubt that the ultimate end of our political reform is the establishment of a modern democratic state within which people of all ethnic and religious backgrounds can live together in peace and harmony. Today, as Indonesia continues to consolidate its democracy, there is an increasing tendency shown by social and political groups to care only about their own interests at the expense of the survival of the nation as a whole.
For instance, the institutionalization of sharia bylaws in certain provinces and districts has led to discrimination against minority groups. The Indonesian constitutional system seems to have no definite answer to the question of a proper relationship between the state and religion.
At best, people can say that Indonesia is not a secular state, nor is it based on any particular religion. Since the identity of the state is defined in negative terms, it is not really clear what really constitutes the state we call Indonesia.
To be sure, we have Pancasila, the five principles that make up the state ideology, but in reality they have become empty rhetoric that have no effect on the behavior of individual politicians and political parties.
In the past the Indonesian leaders did try to bind together the nation by introducing certain ideological principles in a platform that was acceptable to all social and political groups. Unfortunately, such efforts were conducted on an ad hoc basis and mainly for the exclusive interests of the national leader.
For instance, during the period of Guided Democracy, founding president Sukarno tried to unite the nation with his trilogy of nationalism, religion and communism (Nasakom). The New Order government under Soeharto tried to impose Pancasila as the sole ideology (azas tunggal) for all political parties and mass organizations. But his political goal was not so much for the unity of the nation as for the perpetuation of his power. To make things worse, at the end of his rule Soeharto pitted one religious group against another to make himself indispensable.
Time and again Indonesia has faced critical junctures in the evolution of its political history. Today Indonesia has to choose to either remain committed to the ideological principles stipulated in the preamble of the 1945 Constitution, or let itself to be carried away by whatever ideological force happens to dominate the whole system. The absence of common parameters in the current process of political reform makes it difficult for Indonesia to stick to the idealism of its founding fathers when they laid down the foundations of this state.
The Indonesian people have to realize that to become a strong and united nation is a matter of intentional choice and a commitment to live up to that choice. It is not an automatic process. A multicultural nation like the United States, whose national motto, e pluribus unum, is similar to our bhinneka tunggal ika (unity in diversity), has managed to defend its national unity because the American people share common political principles such as democracy, liberty, individualism, liberalism and equality.
The strengthening of partisan and sectarian politics in our society brings with it certain implications for the future of the nation.
First, it will damage the nation's potential to accomplish its national goals. It is argued that Indonesia's cultural diversity constitutes a huge energy that is essential for the survival of the nation in an increasingly globalized world. The creativity of a nation often originates from the work ethics and positive habits of its cultural constituents.
Second, the proliferation of political sectarianism in various provinces and districts makes it difficult to establish a common conception of nationalism and democratic citizenship. It is a sad fact that since the Soeharto era many Indonesian leaders have been in a competition to scramble for the economic resources of the nation without reflecting on what they can contribute to its progress. It is true that China and Singapore do not have democracy, but at least their leaders work hard to promote the dignity of their nations through economic progress.
Third, Indonesia is going to waste its energy and time in dealing with unimportant issues while neglecting the urgent ones like poverty alleviation, illiteracy, unemployment, malnutrition, and the prevention of communicable diseases. No wonder Indonesia has gone through significant setbacks in many aspects of international competition compared to other nations in Southeast Asia.
Last but not least, there will be a scarcity of sincerity and trust in social interactions among citizens with the effect that our society is prone to violence and social unrest. Obviously, this is not the kind of nation that our national heroes were ready to die for during their struggle for independence.
The writer is the head of the department of international relations and head of the MA study program in international relations at Parahyangan University, Bandung. He can be reached at aljemadu@yahoo.co.uk.
No comments:
Post a Comment