G-30-S tragedy: Between amnesia and lustration<\/p>\n
Mochtar Buchori, Jakarta<\/p>\n
We all know what \"amnesia\" means, but \"lustration\" is a
\nstrange word to many Indonesians. \"Amnesia\" means \"partial or
\ntotal loss of memory\". \"Lustration\" means \"purification\". The
\nmeaning of the verb form of the word, \"lustrate\", is \"to purify\".<\/p>\n
I came across these two words in an article about the former
\nFederal Republic of Czechoslovakia. In his inaugural address as
\nthe first president of Czechoslovakia, Vaclav Havel made an
\nappeal to his people to forgive each other for the mistakes the
\nnation made in the past. He asked his people not to distrust each
\nother, not to hate each other and above all not to seek revenge.<\/p>\n
He stated that in his opinion every citizen of the country was
\nguilty and responsible for the rise of a Communist government in
\n1948. He asked his people to concentrate their energy on the
\nproblems of the future, and not constantly to accuse each other
\nfor the past.<\/p>\n
This policy was called the \"amnesty-and-amnesia\" policy. It
\ncan be translated as the \"forgive-and-forget\" policy. This policy
\nproved to be a failure. Under the protection of this policy
\nbureaucrats from the old Communist regime remained in their
\npositions, and they used these positions to obstruct any new
\npolicies that might jeopardize their personal interests.<\/p>\n
The public became restless and a new movement was born under
\nthe name of the \"lustration movement\", aimed at \"purifying\" the
\ngovernment of the cronies from the old Communist regime. This
\nmovement also failed to achieve its goals. The end result was
\nthat the Federal Republic of Czechoslovakia was split into two
\nindependent republics, i.e. the Czech Republic and the Republic
\nof Slovakia.<\/p>\n
This story about Czechoslovakia, and the great leader Vaclav
\nHavel, made me think of our own situation in Indonesia. Forty
\nyears ago, on Sept. 30, 1965, a national tragedy occurred. It
\nused to be referred to as the \"G-30-S affair\", G-30-S standing
\nfor Gerakan 30 September, literally meaning \"the September 30th
\nMovement\".<\/p>\n
The political power that came out of this tragedy was called
\nthe Orde Baru -- meaning the \"New Order\" -- and it quickly
\nproclaimed that the tragedy was an abortive coup d'etat by the
\nnow defunct Indonesian Communist Party (PKI).<\/p>\n
In academic circles, however, there is a countertheory that it
\nwas a preemptive attempt by political forces rallying behind the
\nPKI to abort an imminent coup by the Council of Generals (Dewan
\nJendral). Which of these two claims is closer to the truth is
\nthus far unresolved. Historians must still complete their
\nacademic task of uncovering the mysteries that surround this
\naffair.<\/p>\n
Many changes have happened since this bloody political affair
\nhappened. But these changes have still not brought about a
\nsociety that is close enough to the idea of a \"just and
\nprosperous society\". In spite of all the economic progress made
\nthus far, we still cannot call our society a prosperous one.
\nThere are still too many Indonesians who live below the poverty
\nline. And in spite of all the legal reforms attempted thus far we
\nstill cannot call our society a just one. There are still too
\nmany injustices inflicted on the common people.<\/p>\n
This raises the question of whether we have learned enough
\nfrom the horrible affair of 40 years ago, and from the tumultuous
\naftermath of this affair. Admittedly, we did learn a number of
\nimportant things, but we failed to learn one very important
\nlesson; i.e. the lesson about democracy building and about
\ntransforming our political culture.<\/p>\n
We learned to reject totalitarianism, but we failed to prevent
\nan authoritarian government. We are also not aware that we failed
\nto learn that democracy is not only reserved for the political
\nelite, but that it aims primarily to protect the interests of the
\ncommon people.<\/p>\n
We have failed to learn that democracy cannot be built on the
\nbasis of force, but that it requires the consent of the people.
\nConsent cannot be obtained by threat or intimidation. The genuine
\nconsent that is the basis of a lasting democracy can come only
\nfrom citizens who are fully aware of their rights and
\nobligations.<\/p>\n
Looking at the ways our political system works today, and the
\nlevel of political literacy obtained by the people, it is really
\nno wonder that we constantly repeat the mistakes of the past. To
\nme, the important question in this regard is whether we will ever
\nhave the ability to learn from our past mistakes.<\/p>\n
Our failure to learn the important lessons of the 1965 tragedy
\nmay also be caused by the fact that so far there has been no
\nsincere or honest historical account of the affair. What we have
\nthus far is, to use the expression of Lord Michael Howard of
\nOxford, \"instant judgment\" rather than an \"historical account\".
\nAnd instant judgment always tell us more about the parties
\njudging than the situation judged.<\/p>\n
The task of our historians is not easy. For one thing,
\nhistorians must distinguish between \"the significant\" and \"the
\ntransitory\", and determine whether an event is purely fortuitous
\nor indicative of a long-term trend.<\/p>\n
But no matter how difficult the task of historians may be,
\nthey are the only ones who can provide the nation with reliable
\nguidelines regarding how the nation should proceed in the future
\nto find true answers to our present problems.<\/p>\n
The writer has a doctorate in education from Harvard
\nUniversity.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/g-30-s-tragedy-between-amnesia-and-lustration-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}