Gus Dur welcomes differences<\/p>\n
By Harkiman Racheman<\/p>\n
MEDAN (JP): In an unprecedented celebration for the Chinese
\nNew Year at the Hyatt Regency Surabaya on Feb. 19, President
\nAbdurrahman Wahid (Gus Dur) said, in front of 1,200 followers of
\nConfucianism, that, \"Differences must enrich our attempts to make
\nlife in the nation better.\"<\/p>\n
Acknowledging that diverse human characteristics are indeed
\nunalterably fundamental, Gus Dur added that such differences \"can
\nbe a blessing.\" \"The more we differ,\" the Islamic scholar, turned
\npresident, argued, \"the clearer our unity will be.\"<\/p>\n
Contrary to Gus Dur's almost \"wishful thinking\", the reality
\nis that Indonesians' different social, economic, political and
\ncultural backgrounds have not made the nation more unified. When
\nviewed against the ongoing interracial, intercultural and inter-
\nreligious riots, it can only be concluded that such differences
\nmay not be a blessing at all.<\/p>\n
The multifaceted differences have not brought the country
\ntogether. With the celebrated absence of the once overpowerful
\nmilitary, those differences have almost torn apart the ideal of a
\nunitary nation, as evident from the tragedies in parts of Aceh
\nand Maluku provinces. Diversity seems to have only contributed to
\nincreasing cross-social animosity, misunderstanding and
\nsuspicion.<\/p>\n
Thus, the biggest problem remains the same: Why have all these
\ndifferences continued to bring us the reverse of what Gus Dur
\nsaid above?<\/p>\n
The most logical solution to that continuing problem has not
\nbeen properly implemented. Differences of all kinds pose a more
\nworrying threat than anything else because the past and present
\npolitical elite have not addressed them with resolve and
\nconsistent with values contained in the state's unanimously-
\naccepted ideological reference, Pancasila.<\/p>\n
According to Pancasila, Indonesia is a democracy based on an
\nadmittedly modern concept. This ideologically sets the country
\napart from other feudal, traditional, theocratic, primordial or
\nmonarchal systems of government. Indonesia, at least
\nconceptually, not only aims at accommodating differences, but
\nalso encourages them to grow as well, to reach its lofty goal --
\na prosperous and just society.<\/p>\n
The coat of arms bearing the slogan Bhinneka Tunggal Ika which
\nliterally translates into \"diversity in unity\" (not \"unity in
\ndiversity\"), stresses the importance of \"diversity\" over the
\nimposition of \"unity\" and concretely depicts the above modernized
\nconcept of the nation.<\/p>\n
In fact, the raison d'etre underlying the formation of the
\nnewly unified nation now known as Indonesia, as clearly
\nformulated by the founding fathers, was that all diverse
\ncomponents could live and work peacefully together to achieve
\nprosperity and social justice.<\/p>\n
Diversity covers an extremely broad spectrum. The archipelago,
\nonce known as \"the pearls of the equator\", comprises numerous
\ntraditional, cultural, racial and spiritual elements. Like its
\nexhaustive flora and fauna, those miscellaneous resources and
\ndiverse social, economic, political and ideological persuasions
\ncharacterize the nation from the easternmost town of Merauke to
\nthe westernmost town of Sabang.<\/p>\n
Even though diversity can offer a priceless potential, as
\nexemplified by some more developed multiracial countries, it has
\nnot been fully utilized here. Instead, it has been abused to
\nentertain some of the most twisted minds of past and present
\npolitical puppets.<\/p>\n
The Old Order (1945-1967) under first president Sukarno did
\nnot prepare a necessary paradigm for future power holders in
\nmanaging society's differences. Though successfully laying the
\nphilosophical and ideological foundation, the Old Order did not
\neffect the principle of Bhineka Tunggal Ika.<\/p>\n
Afterwards, the three-decade rule of second president
\nSoeharto's New Order (1968-1998) disregarded diversity. It
\noveremphasized forced unity or pseudo-uniformity at the expense
\nof conducive pluralism. Hence, the ideal of \"diversity\" was for
\nthe first time formally subdued and supplanted by that of
\n\"unity.\"<\/p>\n
By nurturing unhealthy social, cultural, economic, political,
\nracial and religious sentiments, the autocratic government of the
\nNew Order successfully subdued diverse anti-establishment
\naspirations, especially from such resource rich regions as Aceh
\nand Irian Jaya. However, Soeharto eventually failed and his true
\ncolors were finally exposed.<\/p>\n
Worse, the regime's downfall in mid-1998 led the nation to the
\nverge of disintegration. But, when the pro-Soeharto military
\nfinally fell from grace, all kinds of new voices were released,
\nincluding the formerly unheard voices of minority groups.<\/p>\n
They demanded at all costs their basic rights to a decent life
\nand freedom of expression -- proving again that diversity can
\nnever be terminated by force, no matter how powerful and corrupt.<\/p>\n
The transitional government under B.J. Habibie (1998-1999)
\nfailed to hold together the disintegrating country and was
\nrejected. Taking sides with certain Islamic groups and supportive
\ninterest groups, it unfairly promoted sectarian politics and
\nabandoned pluralism.<\/p>\n
Habibie's short-lived government, in which minority interests
\nwere not represented, especially those of Christians and Chinese
\nIndonesians, became a threat to the country's emotional unity.<\/p>\n
His poorly conceived nation building concept of pribumi
\nreferred to any Indonesian who devotes his\/her entire life for
\nthe country's welfare. This changed the conventional meaning in
\nsuch a way that Habibie emotionally divided the nation into
\nconflicting groups of confusingly classified natives and non-
\nnatives.<\/p>\n
Now, with President Abdurrahman's democratically elected
\ngovernment, for the first time in post-independence history,
\ndiversity has been formally acknowledged and officially
\naccommodated.<\/p>\n
With this tremendous political will and with the current
\nlegal, economic and political reforms, Gus Dur's appeal for the
\nnation to live in an all-enriching and all-embodying harmonious
\ndiversity can hopefully unite our country once and for all.<\/p>\n
National disintegration will not occur due to differences
\nalone; such differences are fundamental to life. But, national
\nbreak-up could occur from the way those differences were handled
\nand exploited by the previous powerholder. Massive disintegration
\nis only possible if those differences are intolerably abused for
\na certain political agenda.<\/p>\n
Given that plurality occurs at all levels of national life,
\nany Indonesian government would have to be naive or insensible if
\nit imposed cultural amalgamation or forced assimilation on its
\nmulti-cultural and multi-religious citizenry.<\/p>\n
Implying an in-depth understanding of human existential
\nrealities, Gus Dur's statement above constitutes at its best the
\ngovernment's most sincere acknowledgement of multi-level
\ndifferences, a thought Soeharto would never have entertained.<\/p>\n
This appeal for our crisis-struck nation to accept, tolerate
\nand comprehend differences is in accordance with universally
\naccepted philosophies of today's world.<\/p>\n
Like it or not, the degree to which the government is willing
\nto welcome differences is also largely reflective of its
\nreadiness to lead a modern democratic country.<\/p>\n
The writer graduated from Victoria University at Wellington,
\nNew Zealand. Based in Medan, he is currently a university teacher
\nand freelance writer.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/gus-dur-welcomes-differences-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}