Lawlessness worse than disintegration<\/p>\n
Violent outbursts threaten to break down social trust,
\nthrowing national unity in limbo and unleashing chaos and
\nlawlessness. Political scientist J. Soedjati Djiwandono thinks
\nthe latter is more dangerous than disintegration.<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): The slogan unitariness and unity of the nation
\n(persatuan dan kesatuan bangsa) has been on the lips of most
\nleaders in this country since Soeharto came to power. Now it
\nseems even more often and more readily uttered than before, not
\nonly because of the threat to national unity, but also what is
\ngenerally perceived as the danger of disintegration.<\/p>\n
Many people do not really seem to care about the difference
\nbetween the two words. In fact, the term is incoherent. Persatuan
\n(unity) refers to Indonesian nationhood, whereas kesatuan
\n(unitariness) refers to Indonesian statehood, that is, the form
\nof the state.<\/p>\n
Indeed, national unity in this country has been set back for
\nsome time, particularly in religious and racial terms, if not so
\nmuch in ethnic terms. However, at this initial stage of reform,
\nironically, it has suffered a further setback. At least on the
\nsurface, religion seems to have been made the main dividing
\nfactor.<\/p>\n
I, for one, am more concerned with national unity than with
\ndisintegration, if the former should mean the unity of the
\nIndonesian people, and the latter the falling apart of the
\nunitary state. Admittedly, no government since independence has
\nbeen able to properly manage this country, the largest
\narchipelago and the fourth most populous, and probably the most
\ndiverse nation in the world.<\/p>\n
One government after another has bungled, most notably in
\nAceh, in Irian Jaya, and since 1976 in East Timor. For these
\nprovinces and perhaps some others as well, to be part of this
\nhuge unitary republic is no big deal. Minorities do not fare
\nbetter.<\/p>\n
Interestingly, when one talks about the majority of the people
\nin this country, one inevitably refers to the religious factor,
\nnot the ethnic, say the Javanese that have constituted a large
\nmajority of the population since well before the advent of Islam.
\nOnly when speaking of minorities, then, would one refer not only
\nto religious, but also to ethnic and racial (particularly
\nChinese) backgrounds.<\/p>\n
In point of fact, to over-emphasize the dichotomy between
\nmajority and minorities runs counter to the idea at the inception
\nof the Indonesian nationhood expressed so enthusiastically in the
\nyouth pledge of 1928, the date of which, October 28, the nation
\ncelebrates every year with nostalgia.<\/p>\n
With all due respect to the founding fathers of this republic,
\nthe spirit of the original draft preamble to the 1945
\nconstitution, before the present one was promulgated on Aug. 18,
\n1945, was already a betrayal of the spirit of the youth pledge in
\nthat it began to make a distinction between the religious
\nmajority and the rest of the population in reference to their
\nreligious obligations. Despite the removal of the famous seven
\nwords, restoring, in effect, the spirit of the youth pledge,
\nreligious issues have marked the life of the republic from the
\nbeginning.<\/p>\n
It is hard to understand why we should stick our necks out in
\ndefending the unitary state or even further in maintaining the
\nexistence of just a single nation-state of Indonesia, if in that
\nunified state we are forever fighting with one another over the
\nphilosophical foundation of the state, ignoring the general
\nwelfare of the people, for which it was established in the first
\nplace. To struggle for the dominance, let alone the imposition of
\na religion, even that of a large majority, if that's what the
\nissue is all really about, is not to struggle for the general
\nwelfare of the whole people.<\/p>\n
Granted that the teachings of that religion are meant to be
\nuniversal for the entirety of humanity, so are those of the other
\nreligions. So such an effort is diametrically opposed to the
\nconcept of Indonesian nationhood, the very foundation of this
\nrepublic, which recognizes no privileges for any religious,
\nracial, ethnic, linguistic or cultural backgrounds or affinities.<\/p>\n
Worse still, it is an abuse of religion to use it basically
\nfor no more than narrow political ends, which serve only the
\ninterest of a certain group of people, no matter how large that
\ngroup may be.<\/p>\n
Certainly, we cannot expect anyone or any group of people to
\nenter into any kind of unity or integration, if by so doing they
\nwill suffer some form of discrimination or injustice. Separatism
\nwould be an attractive alternative, if that unity or integration
\ndoes not deliver the goods.<\/p>\n
I am deeply concerned not so much over disintegration or
\nseparatism as over the violence that usually marks its process
\nwith frightening costs in terms of human lives. We can learn from
\nthe experiences of such cases as Northern Ireland, Bosnia
\nHerzegovina, and Chechnya, in which religion supposedly plays an
\nimportant role, and for which a solution is not in sight in the
\nforeseeable future.<\/p>\n
How many more lives are to be sacrificed?<\/p>\n
A religious conflict is in itself a contradiction in terms,
\nfor religion and peace go together. Moreover, history has shown
\nthat in a so-called religious conflict, which is usually a cover
\nfor much more mundane interests, nobody actually wins.<\/p>\n
Are we really facing the threat of disintegration in the sense
\nof separatism? Probably not. But the alternative is no better.
\nWe are already disintegrating in terms of national unity.<\/p>\n
Worst of all, lacking in leadership, what we find ourselves in
\nnow is a state of lawlessness with the breakdown of law and
\norder. This is far worse than a revolution or disintegration. Quo
\nvadis Indonesia?<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/lawlessness-worse-than-disintegration-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}