Marsillam fights ghost from Indonesia's past<\/p>\n
Pandangan Negara Integralistik
\n Marsillam Simandjuntak
\n Publisher: PT Pustaka Utama Grafiti, 1994
\n 284 pages<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): Has anyone noticed that hidden beneath the
\nthick, almost invisible smog of political tension, a ghost from
\nthe country's past has been brought back from obscurity to haunt
\nthe democratization process?<\/p>\n
In his new book, Marsillam Simanjuntak, an outspoken activist
\nor eloquent political observer, lashes out against this old ghost
\nidentified in his book's title \"The Integral State Concept\"
\n(Pandangan Negara Integralistik).<\/p>\n
It is curious that the integral idea, a concept not found in
\nthe written text of the constitution, has been officially brought
\nback from obscurity by the New Order government as the basis for
\ninterpreting the 1945 Constitution (UUD'45) and the Pancasila
\nstate ideology.<\/p>\n
This disturbs the author because, as he cleverly shows in his
\nmeticulously researched book, the integral concept became
\nobsolete immediately after it was brought up on the eventful
\nnight of May 31, 1945. That night, some of Indonesia's founding
\nfathers gathered to discuss what principle the country should
\nadopt for its constitution and the foundation of its law.<\/p>\n
This book, currently available only in Bahasa Indonesia, must
\nbe read by those concerned with the democratization process. The
\nbook is especially enlightening because it reflects on the long
\nroots of various non-democratic ideas which are often presented
\nas, like Lee Kuan Yew or Li Peng say, the \"Asian way\".<\/p>\n
Non-democratic<\/p>\n
The idea of the integral state was introduced by Prof. Supomo,
\none of Indonesia's founding fathers, who, based on his peculiar
\nunderstanding of Hegel's philosophy, believed it was consistent
\nwith \"the Eastern way of thinking\" and what he called \"the family
\nprinciple, unity and cohesion\".<\/p>\n
This idea can be summarized as a mostly normative non-
\ndemocratic concept which is modeled on, as Supomo himself said,
\nThird Reich Germany and the ultra nationalistic Japanese
\ngovernment during World War II (p.88).<\/p>\n
Supomo's speech, which was recorded by Muhammad Yamin in his
\nNaskah Persiapan UUD'45, summarized the concept as: \"...the State
\nas an integral combination of the entire society, of all people
\nand all classes, in which its members relate to one another as an
\norganic unity...the State does not favor a particular group or
\nclass, does not view the individual's interests as essential but
\nit guarantees the nation's livelihood as a whole in a unity which
\ncannot be separated.\" (p.85)<\/p>\n
Marsillam attacks this idea as it ignores the basic rights of
\ncitizens, is too vague and is virtually inconceivable in the
\ncontext of a modern state's administrative law.<\/p>\n
Indeed, other than on one night, Supomo never elaborated on
\nthe controversial concept.<\/p>\n
The professor, as described in the book, was consistently
\nvague and controversial during his presentation. At one point, he
\neven argued that \"it is not an essential matter under the
\nintegral concept whether the country should be governed under a
\nrepublic or a monarchy\".<\/p>\n
Instead, Supomo said \"what is vital is that the head of state
\nmust have a character resembling that of a leader and the entire
\npeople\" and \"whether the head of state is a King...a
\nPresident...or a Fuhrer, it is not essential.\"<\/p>\n
In addition, Supomo, a Dutch trained lawyer and member of the
\nJavanese gentry who worked in the civil service under the Dutch
\nand Japanese occupation, also adamantly opposed all ideas that he
\nthought \"liberal\" and \"individualistic\" which were proposed, for
\nexample, by the other founding father Muhammad Hatta who brought
\nup the issue of human rights.<\/p>\n
It is to Marsillam's credit that he chronologically presents
\nhow various \"democratic\" ideas finally prevailed in the 1945
\nConstitution as illustrated in Article 28, which \"guarantees the
\nright to assembly and freedom of opinion which is managed by the
\nlaw\".<\/p>\n
Non-integral<\/p>\n
Marsillam concludes that the 1945 Constitution is essentially
\nnon-integral because many elements of Supomo's original idea were
\nlater dismantled in the text of the constitution. (p.112)<\/p>\n
In fact, in a very important footnote on p.237, Marsillam
\nproves that even Supomo, in a book published in 1948, repudiated
\nhis 1945 insistence on the concept.<\/p>\n
The author writes: \"This particular acknowledgment of Supomo
\nshould end the debate in the interpretation of article 28 in
\nUUD'45, which is clearly about the basic rights of man. Thus, it
\nis also the end of the integral concept.\"<\/p>\n
To Marsillam's dismay, this concept has been brought back from
\nvirtual obscurity by the New Order government for political
\npurposes.<\/p>\n
He believes that the idea was resurrected to restrict any new
\ninterpretation of Pancasila and the Preamble of the 1945
\nConstitution, particularly pertaining to citizen's rights.<\/p>\n
He points out, for example, that in a text book published by
\nthe government in 1984, the integral state was referred to as the
\nmethod to interpret the 1945 Constitution, particularly on human
\nrights issues.<\/p>\n
Marsillam indicates that this is a serious problem. He reminds
\nthe reader that Pancasila had the capability to become the
\nfoundation of the UUDS (Provisional Law) 1950, a very liberal
\nblue print of a constitution which explicitly guaranteed human
\nrights and the formation of a parliamentary government.<\/p>\n
Marsillam's concluding message, which is difficult to argue
\nagainst, blasts maneuvers designed to bring back the integral
\nidea: \"...all sorts of integral concepts should be abandoned and
\nno longer applied because they will violate the people's
\nsovereignty..\"<\/p>\n
Despite his apparent strong disagreement with Supomo, one of
\nthe nation's heroes, Marsillam carefully phrases his work and
\nnever attempts to discredit the professor by launching personal
\nattacks.<\/p>\n
In short, the book is not a character assassination of Prof.
\nSupomo.<\/p>\n
The book's only weakness, I believe, is the long and rather
\nover worked analysis of Hegel's political philosophy which does
\nnot seem to posses any urgent relevance to the rest of the work.<\/p>\n
One problem also remains. If the UUD '45 is a non-integral
\nconstitution, can we safely regard it as a \"democratic\"
\nconstitution?<\/p>\n
Marsillam does not rule out that the UUD '45 contains many of
\nSukarno's anti liberal ideas which, if seen through a particular
\nhistorical and political light, are essentially just another form
\nof the integral concept.<\/p>\n
In light of the recent press bans and the executive's pressure
\non the Supreme Court about the latter's unexpected ruling, all
\nIndonesians should remember this truly fearsome ghost.<\/p>\n
-- Hidayat Jati<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/marsillam-fights-ghost-from-indonesias-past-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }