Sanctity of Pancasila: Myth or reality?<\/p>\n
J. Soedjati Djiwandono, Political Analyst, Jakarta<\/p>\n
People have been wondering why President Megawati
\nSoekarnoputri, Vice President Hamzah Haz and People's
\nConsultative Assembly (MPR) Speaker Amien Rais did not attend the
\nannual Pancasila Sanctity Day celebration on Oct. 1. Surely, I
\ncannot claim any foreknowledge about it. Nor do I know if they
\ndid not show up for the same reasons.<\/p>\n
By Presidential Decision of September 1967, Oct. 1 was made
\nPancasila Sanctity Day. Pancasila is the state ideology
\nconsisting of five principles: belief in God, unity, humanity,
\ndeliberation for representation and social justice. It is of
\nrelevance to note, as will be clear below, that some time later
\nthe birth of Pancasila, which previously was celebrated on June 1
\n(the day in 1945 when Sukarno delivered his extemporaneous speech
\non the philosophical basis of the future Indonesian state before
\nthe Committee on Preparation for Indonesian Independence, later
\npublished as The Birth of Pancasila), was also changed by
\nSoeharto to Aug. 18, the day after the proclamation of Indonesian
\nindependence, when the 1945 Constitution containing the five
\nprinciples in its Preamble, if not the word Pancasila itself, was
\npromulgated.<\/p>\n
In fact, the Indonesian word kesaktian is richer than the
\nEnglish equivalent "sanctity". While the English word means
\nsomething like "sacred" or "holy", sakti means something like
\n"supernaturally powerful". The idea behind the "sanctification"
\nof Pancasila seems to be the belief that Indonesians survived the
\ntragedy of the Gestapu (posed by anti-Pancasilaists) because of
\nthe sanctity of Pancasila. Soeharto also justified his emerging
\n"New Order" as a "total correction of all the deviations from
\nPancasila and the 1945 Constitution" by Sukarno's "Old Order".<\/p>\n
Given that an ideology simply means, among other things, a set
\nof ideals or das Sollen, formulated by men, to regard Pancasila
\nas something sacred or holy, as having sanctity, goes beyond
\nrationality. It is not an untypical Javanese way of thinking,
\nwhich is often marked by some form of animism.<\/p>\n
Perhaps of greater significance, however, is the possibility
\nthat it was part of Soeharto's political maneuver not only to
\njustify his policies and to give legitimacy to his own rule -- by
\nwhat looked like a democratic process rather than a coup d'etat
\n-- but also to further discredit Sukarno. Soeharto's decision to
\n"sanctify" Pancasila and to change the date of the birth of
\nPancasila, if indirectly -- I suspect through a book written by
\nthe late Nugroho Notosusanto, reportedly the official historian
\nof the Indonesian Military (TNI, then ABRI) -- after Soeharto was
\nappointed acting president by the provisional MPR at its special
\nsession in early 1967, which had led to Sukarno's impeachment.<\/p>\n
If that should be the case, then it seems understandable that
\nPresident Megawati, a daughter of Sukarno, stayed away from this
\nyear's Pancasila Sanctity Day celebration, if she looks at it the
\nway I do. I have no idea of the reasons for the absence of Vice
\nPresident Hamzah Haz and MPR Speaker Amien Rais.<\/p>\n
Indeed, history is often not much more than what we know of
\nthe past based on "facts" available to us, some probably just
\n"myths", and understand it through a certain method or approach.
\nThat's why history will never be completely revealed or fully
\nunderstood.<\/p>\n
The record office in London, for instance, opens to the public
\nofficial documents that have been kept for 30 years. So we should
\nnot be surprised if books on history continue to be published
\nwith new facts and in new versions.<\/p>\n
Then comes the question of what writing history is for. Hence
\nthe importance of a philosophy of history, or history as a social
\nscience, which helps determine the way we construct or write and
\nrewrite history, to serve a special purpose.<\/p>\n
In the context of nation building in the early years of
\nIndonesian independence, books on Indonesian history for high
\nschool students, for instance, were focused on the stories of
\n"national heroes", as if such people really made history.<\/p>\n
Thus cynics often refer to history as "his story". A Russian
\nproverb says that a historian is "an expert in predicting the
\npast". And what about versions of history?<\/p>\n
A joke after the revolution in Czechoslovakia in 1967
\ndescribes what I have in mind: Three prisoners shared one cell.
\nOne of them asked another, "Why are you here?" The man answers,
\n"I am here because I supported Dubcek". Then he asked back, "What
\nabout you, what are you here for?" "I was opposed to Dubcek", was
\nthe answer. Finally both of them asked the third man, who had
\nbeen quiet till then. They shouted together, "Hey, who are you,
\nand why are you here?" He said, "I am Dubcek".<\/p>\n
Recently there have been calls for a review of Gestapu (the
\nSept. 30 Movement) affair of 1965; for the lifting of the ban on
\ncommunism (MPR Decision No. 25\/1966; for national reconciliation
\nand the rehabilitation of political detainees alleged to be
\nmembers of the now banned Indonesian Communist Party (PKI); for a
\nrewriting of Indonesian history, particularly as regards the
\nalleged communist coup attempt.<\/p>\n
And a number of books have been written for the purpose of
\n"setting the record straight" or for "straightening out history".<\/p>\n
What is there to believe, then, especially for the young
\ngeneration of Indonesians? From the outset, the Gestapu affair
\nwas controversial. Sukarno insisted it was Gestok, or the Oct.1
\nMovement. The well-known "Cornell Paper" argued it was an
\ninternal affair of the Indonesian Army.<\/p>\n
On the basis on an article a long time ago on the affair, The
\nmissing link in The Journal of Concerned Asian Scholars, a
\nprofessor from Bombay wrote a dissertation (published as
\nIndonesia under Soeharto, 1988) which argues that Soeharto was
\nthe dalang or mastermind of the affair, a version now supported
\nby the writings of former senior officers such as A. Latief,
\nformer foreign minister Subandrio and others. The list of
\npublications on the matter is endless.<\/p>\n
I would suggest that we leave it to the young generation of
\nIndonesians to make up their minds. Make available to them all
\npossible sources of information, let them learn independent
\nthinking and analysis, and let them make their own independent
\nconclusions.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/sanctity-of-pancasila-myth-or-reality-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}