Linking social justice with national unity<\/p>\n
Each year the nation celebrates the anniversary of the pledge
\nmade by youth activists on Oct. 28, 1928. J. Soedjati Djiwandono
\nreflects on the significance of the pledge in today's society.<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): The Youth Pledge commemoration this week may be
\nof special significance in today's society. It should serve as a
\nstrong reminder of the importance of national unity because never
\nbefore has national unity been so seriously challenged as it is
\nnow. This is not to suggest that the country is facing
\ndisintegration, but the alternatives it faces may not necessarily
\nbe better.<\/p>\n
In the first place, the nationhood of Indonesia should never
\nbe perceived as a racial, ethnic, cultural, religious,
\nlinguistic, or anything other than a political concept.
\nIndependent Indonesia was born as a nation state because, long
\nbefore independence, the concept of Indonesia as a nation had
\nbeen consciously developed.<\/p>\n
This new concept was not forged on the basis of racial,
\nethnic, cultural, religious, or linguistic backgrounds. Hundreds
\nof \"national\" groups were united into a new nation -- the
\nIndonesian nation -- by their common political aspiration to
\nachieve one independent nation which would be free from (Dutch)
\ncolonialism and which would rise above racial, ethnic, cultural,
\nreligious or linguistic affinities.<\/p>\n
The Youth Pledge of Oct. 28 1928 was the manifestation of that
\ncommon determination. Any attempt to impose on our nation any
\nparticular ethnic, racial, or religious values under the
\nassumption that such values are the \"nation's cultural values\" or
\npart of the \"Indonesian identity\" would be contrary to our ideal
\nof national unity.<\/p>\n
However, national unity should never be taken for granted. We
\nhave to continue working for it and making serious efforts to
\nensure that justice prevails. We have to guarantee that no social
\ngroup, even a large majority, regardless of whether its basis is
\nreligious, ethnic, racial, cultural, or linguistic, should claim
\npolitical, economic or any other privileges. At the same time, no
\ngroup, regardless of its basis or how small it may be, should
\nfeel discriminated against for any reason. Perception is often
\nmore important than reality in such cases.<\/p>\n
Those who attempt to resolve social injustices usually
\nemphasize the problem of poverty. Attempts to deal with poverty,
\nhowever, have been ad hoc. The problem of poverty should be
\nhandled in a comprehensive manner, through the enactment of
\nappropriate legislation with an effective system of enforcement,
\nas befits a nation which claims to operate under the rule of law.
\nIt is not enough to \"appeal\" to the rich to be generous toward
\nthe poor. This may be a contradiction in terms.<\/p>\n
Too much emphasis has been given to the question of poverty.
\nSocial injustice has two dimensions. Dealing only with poverty,
\nwithout tackling the problems of the accumulation and
\ndemonstration of wealth, does not solve the problem of the
\nwidening gap between the rich and the poor. Such a gap could
\nlimited, for example, by the adoption of an appropriate tax
\nsystem and anti-monopoly laws.<\/p>\n
It is not poverty itself, but the gap between the rich and the
\npoor that is most likely to threaten social stability and
\nnational unity. Only prosperity based on justice can guarantee
\npeace and social stability. In any society there are bound to be
\nconflicts of interest among individuals and between different
\ngroups. One way of solving such conflicts is through physical
\nforce or violence. At an international level, states go to war.
\nThis is a source of instability. The other way is by peaceful
\nmeans, namely through justice. At the state level, peaceful
\nsolutions are achieved by mutually-agreed compromises.<\/p>\n
Justice, of course, is an ideal and is never fully attainable.
\nIn concrete terms, justice can be promoted by fighting injustice.
\nAnd while the idea of justice or injustice applies to all aspects
\nof life, it is in the socioeconomic field that injustices are
\nmost readily seen and felt.<\/p>\n
The promotion of social justice requires a structural or
\nsocietal change, from feudalism to democratic pluralism. Feudal
\nmentality makes people resigned to what they perceive and accept
\nto be part of their destiny. Their lives and positions in society
\nare seen as being part of the natural order of things -- whether
\nit is to be poor and to serve, or to be rich and to be served.<\/p>\n
National unity can only be maintained through social justice.
\nInjustice applies not only to individuals, but also to groups in
\nsociety. Such injustices are often attributed, unnecessarily and
\nincorrectly, to differences in ethnic, racial, or religious
\nbackgrounds. Those feeling disadvantaged, underprivileged, or
\ndiscriminated against, are likely to be averse to unity with the
\nprivileged.<\/p>\n
Whenever groups feel deprived of their proper rights and
\nproper place in society, or believe their aspirations are not
\nsufficiently accommodated in the existing political system, it
\nmay be a sign that the system is not working properly or that the
\nstate is not delivering the goods.<\/p>\n
The writer is a member of the Board of Directors at the Centre
\nfor Strategic and International Studies, Jakarta.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/linking-social-justice-with-national-unity-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}