An interesting discussion is included at the bottom of the essay.
------------
Pancasila Isn’t What It Used to Be
Yohanes Sulaiman | June 01, 2011
The history of Pancasila is well known. It was developed in the final days of the Japanese occupation, forged by nationalists to create a social contract among the citizens of the future nation of Indonesia. It was hoped that Pancasila would become a foundation and a guide in creating a harmonious society based on religious tolerance, humanism, nationalism, democracy and social justice.
Unfortunately though, years even before the fall of Suharto in 1998, Pancasila started to lose its luster, notably in competition with religious ideologies. Unlike religion, Pancasila is something that gives neither God’s blessing in this life nor salvation in the next. Pancasila has no deity behind it that can demand obedience.
As a result, Pancasila is only appealing as a state ideology as long as the government is able to rule the country wisely.
The first few decades of Indonesian independence showed Pancasila’s promise. It was used to unify people from diverse religious, social and ethnic backgrounds. It was used to rally people against the Dutch and various rebellions in the 1950s and 1960s. It was also used to temper the minorities’ fears of a tyranny of the majority by stressing the religious harmony, humanism and equality among people from various backgrounds.
By the last decade of the New Order, however, government corruption at every level made a mockery of social justice. The rich grew richer and the poor grew poorer and oppressed. Both the authoritarian government and the electoral shams undermined the idea of a democracy based on deliberation and consensus, as the consensus was imposed from the top. National unity was rattled by misconduct in East Timor, Papua and Aceh. The miscarriage of justice by the law-enforcement agencies — from the courts to regular police officers — violated the idea of humanism itself. The use of religions as political tools upset the idea of religious harmony and tolerance.
Add to this mess the wrongheaded approach in teaching Pancasila in schools, such as by forcing students to simply memorize everything in the textbooks without understanding what Pancasila was all about. Here the government created a condition where people were simply fed up with Pancasila — specifically in the light of widespread misconduct of state representatives.
In short, the government’s misconduct and inability to bring prosperity to the people eroded trust in Pancasila as the guiding philosophy for our nation.
Not surprisingly, people started looking at alternative ideologies that did seem to walk the talk. It was like an old guide who kept telling people to walk through the uncertain trails of a jungle even when there was an adjacent highway with the same destination.
Often, people found guidance in religion, and as a result, it has become more and more important in public life. Unfortunately, without a good curriculum — one that teaches pluralism and exposes students to a variety of religions — people become more and more fanatical, listening to only a single intolerant viewpoint that declares “only my religion is right, the rest goes to hell and needs to be purged.”
This is the reason why Pancasila still has a role. Pancasila is important as a social contract that unites the diverse Indonesian society. It is losing its luster because it fails to adapt to the changing nature of Indonesian society. It was hijacked as a political tool to indoctrinate Indonesians to simply obey the government.
What we need is to free Pancasila from its shackles of doctrinaire rigidity.
President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and various officials have said there is a need to learn more Pancasila at school, but this would not do much to help the ideology regain its role. Instead, what the president should do is encourage honest discussions on Pancasila, opening the door to various interpretations of every single sila of the ideology, not just simply imposing rigid doctrinaire interpretations. In essence, Pancasila should be seen as an evolving contract that will take into account both political and economic changes in Indonesian society.
In comparison, even today in the United States debates still rage on the founding fathers’ intentions in drafting the Constitution. For instance, the idea of freedom of speech is still being debated, notably on what kind of speech is protected b and whether the Constitution protects socially unacceptable behavior such as “hate speech.”
The US Supreme Court decides on whether the government and legislators act in line with the Constitution. So in essence, the US Constitution remains important and relevant to citizens’ daily lives, as it is used as a guide of conduct: the government cannot draw up a policy in violation of the law.
That kind of debate is needed here too, to integrate Pancasila further into daily lives, to make it a living contract that remains relevant in guiding people in this modern and uncertain era. To simply impose a doctrinaire understanding of Pancasila will only have an adverse effect, as people are no longer seeing Pancasila as something important and relevant and they will loathe it.
The fate of Muammar el-Qaddafi’s Green Book in Libya should warn people who want to impose Pancasila rigidly. After Qaddafi took power in the late 1960s, he wrote the Green Book, which he hoped would become the underlying philosophy of Libyan society. He in essence imposed the book on the people, making it required reading for everyone, and remaking society forcibly based on the ideas he propagated in the book without tolerating any criticism. When the current uprising hit Libya, these books were the first thing that people burned.
------------
enakajah
10:29am Jun 2, 2011
You use the analogy of the US constitution. However the US only have the constitution, they do not have the equivalent of Pancasila. Does having two separate but symbiotic works, a constitution and Pancasila, make open debate more complex? Who should be tasked to protect or supervise Pancasila? The supreme court or the Constitutional court. Even here we have two elevated legal bodies. Without a doubt I agree wholeheartedly with this piece. As usual you have put forward a marvelous article with a strong position. However does having two make open debate more difficult? which one takes precedence? Pancasila if it was a dynamic and live body is definitely much easier for the people to get behind and support. But how does it stand to debate when the constitution may be at odds. And with reference to your last article, how on earth would we even begin to start this with the shocking quality government and administrations we have at present?
Perhaps a new grass roots political party developed from the bottom up, as you suggested, based on Pancasila rather than buzz words like "democratic" "Struggle" "Justice" etc. A new party formed by the people, for the people, of the people. Now that sounds familiar too doesn't it.
Thank you again. Wonderful article.
Yohanes-Sulaiman
5:28pm Jun 2, 2011
Pak Enakajah: The US does have an equivalent of Pancasila - it is enshrined within their constitution, which is the first Ten Amendments, also known as the "Bill of Rights," such as "Freedom of Speech," "The Rights to bear arms," etc.
The debate on Pancasila should be done everywhere: in the classroom, in the court of justice, and in the public debates.
There should not be any body to "protect" or to "supervise" Pancasila. Rather, what we need to have is some sort of a neutral referee that will be the final arbiter of the debate.
In Indonesia, the role should be given to the Constitutional Court. Still, I have some problems with this, as in Indonesia, the idea of "precedents" that current law should have a precedent based on a previous understanding on law, is lacking.
Considering the fact that many decision in Indonesia is taken arbitrarily. E.g. Jakarta Globe just published an article about the prosecutor demanded a year imprisonment for the ringleader of the church burning in Central Java. How did that person get that "one year imprisonment?" He should look at precedent, previous comparable cases, and worked from that. If the last person caught burning houses of worships received 5 year punishment, then the prosecutor should ask for 6-7 year punishment. There, the prosecutor was following precedent and thus nobody could complain of unfairness of the system.
The Constitutional Court should work like that. Should the government's law is challenged, then the court should look at the case based on whether the law violate the understanding of Pancasila at that point of time.
I admit that that's too ideal of a solution, which is very difficult to achieve, considering the "rote mentality" of our academics and our officials, making them too lazy to think independently. Still, I think that's the only solution to prevent further abuses of the system, where unruly religious fanatics could impose their will and our officials simply have no backbone to stand against them. Worse, without attemtping to make Pancasila become relevant to our law-making institutions and our court system, Pancasila will simply just a piece of paper.
I hope I don't ramble too much and feel free to ask me to clarify my points.
enakajah
5:48pm Jun 2, 2011
Pak Yohanes, I agree with your position entirely. I do not however feel that it is too idealistic. I believe it is an ideal that should be a target as I believe you are trying to make as a position in your article. The Amendments to the Constitution in the US are just that. Amendments. They carry their own weight, strive to achieve the same ideals but reamin one document or ideal rather than two. This though is splitting hairs and I concede point.
The idea of protect and supervise was in fact as you state to act as a referee. Similar function. But where does that leave us if there are conflicts between the constitution and a dynamic Pancasila? Can one body be referee to both?
Anyway I believe what you are putting forward is possible and the best solution worth striving for. The problem is how to encourage others to support this?. as you say, teaching and ramming it down peoples throats along with all the other worries we all have will only be detrimental. A tough nut to crack. But then again all your articles are tough nut subjects. :)
Yohanes-Sulaiman
6:11pm Jun 2, 2011
I think we agreed on almost everything and I jsut need to clarify one minor point, which is on the "conflicts between constitution and a dynamic Pancasila." First, I think we need to clarify what we mean by "constitution" first. I think there's a confusion, something missing in translation when we are trying to understand the meaning of "US Constitution" and comparing it to Indonesia.
Indonesians always think Pancasila as a symbol and the Indonesian constitution is the UUD 1945. I may play with fire here, but I will argue that we should not think the UUD 1945 as something sacred that should never be changed. In fact, the UUD 1945 should be seen as the first interpretation of the Pancasila itself, and thus the UUD 1945 should be changed if it is necessary.
In essence, what should be dynamic is the interpretation of Pancasila itself, and the Constitutional Court should be the one refereeing the different interpretations, creating precedents.
Therefore, the country should debate the interpretation of Pancasila, what did our founding fathers wanted the state to be. The UUD 1945 was just a stopgap, created at a very short time. Not surprisingly, they didn't really think much to abandon it and put the new UUDS 1950 later. It is only Sukarno's desire to ressurect the "good old days" and to create a super presidency that the UUD 1945 was taken off the shelve used again.
Well, I think this argument may be too tough of a nuts to crack, and I am really hoping to hear your and other readers' reactions. Probably I should expand this argument further into an article.
enakajah
8:01pm Jun 2, 2011
Again I agree. By making the constitution sacred and rigid, the country enslaves itself to the past. To enable change and make it dynamic and alive will allow the country to progress. I saw it the other way round, but this way is by far the better option if it can be an option at all.
Like the US and other constitutions, the ability to amend it allows for progress, development and strength of a nation.
An article on this would be a great idea. It would be fraught with a great deal of soul searching and as you say, playing with fire. Perhaps that is was is required in these days of growing instability.
No comments:
Post a Comment