State ideology of Pancasila faces challenges<\/p>\n
-----------------------------------------------------------------<\/p>\n
The following are excerpts from a paper presented at a seminar
\norganized by the Driyarkara School of Philosophy recently in
\nconnection with its 25th anniversary.
\n-----------------------------------------------------------------<\/p>\n
By Nurcholish Madjid<\/p>\n
JAKARTA: Pancasila is the premier asset we can mobilize in
\nbuilding democracy in this country. The state ideology equips us
\nwith the basic ingredients for creating democracy on a socio-
\npolitical order that will bring goodness to all.<\/p>\n
First, a recognition of god. Second, a respect for social
\nvalues. Third, an awareness of shared responsibility, in the
\nsense that we do not simply delegate the entire business of
\ngoverning the people's fate to one single public
\nfigure--regardless of his goodwill-- but we entrust it instead to
\na mechanism of social control in a participatory order. And
\nfourth, placing the needs of the many before the needs of the few
\nor the one.<\/p>\n
The combination of these four ingredients constitutes the
\ninfrastructure for building unity and solidarity in our nation
\nstate.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the challenge of our democracy lies in how to
\nencourage processes that will ensure these values endure and
\nbecome a part of our day-to-day ventures. The following is an
\nattempt to provide a list of important aspects of a democratic
\nlife based on materials that have more or less developed, both
\ntheoretically or in practice, in countries in which democracy has
\nbeen established to a large extent:<\/p>\n
The first is the importance of awareness of heterogeneity.
\nSuch an awareness does not consists only of a passive recognition
\nof the reality of a diverse society. One can adapt to the
\ndemocracy if one is able to use the dynamics and positive aspects
\nof social diversity as a strength. A society that consistently
\nadheres to a democratic way of life should simultaneously
\nmaintain and protect the broader scope of heterogeneity in a
\nconsistent manner. This necessitates a high level of personal
\nmorality.<\/p>\n
In our political jargon, we have the term 'musyawarah' (from
\nthe Arabic word, originally meaning--more or less--\"exchanging
\ngestures\"). The recognition of the meaning and spirit of
\nmusyawarah requires the awareness and maturity to sincerely
\naccept the possibility of compromises and even the possibility of
\nhaving to lose in deliberation. The Prophet Mohammed, for
\ninstance, in a musyawarah deliberating on the right strategy to
\ncounter the infidel Makkah, once failed to get his way. He
\nsincerely and consistently accepted the decision made by the
\nmajority, and during the operation he rejected the second
\nthoughts that some of his close friends were having.<\/p>\n
The spirit of musyawarah requires people to accept the
\npossibility of partial functioning of ideals, namely the princi
\nple that in a democracy it is not always the case, and it does
\nnot have to be the case, that our desires and suggestions will be
\naccepted and implemented in full. One of the aspects of the
\nspirit of musyawarah is how mature we are in presenting our
\nopinion, in listening to the opinion of others, in accepting
\ndifferences of opinion, and in the ability to recognize a better
\nopinion.<\/p>\n
In this connection, a real challenge for Indonesians lies in
\nthe fact that, within the half century of our independence, we
\nhave always lived under the leadership of one national figure
\n(formerly Sukarno and now President Soeharto). Both these wise
\nnational figures have succeeded in bringing the whole Indonesian
\nnation into a level closer to full maturity.<\/p>\n
However--and this is the price that has to be paid by a
\nsociety that is still 'young' and still finds itself in a growing
\nprocess-- the experience of living under the leadership of a
\nsingle national figure who possesses a very dominant personality
\nhas failed to expose us to the tradition of making our own
\ndecisions (bottom up) and has made us unable to see as well as to
\ntake advantage of alternatives (since all this time we have been
\ntrained to see only one). A monolithic and absolutist government
\nruns counter to democracy.<\/p>\n
Those who believe \"the ends justify the means\" attempt to
\nreach their goals by methods that do not show moral
\nconsideration. A democratic way of life demands a conviction that
\nthe means should be in harmony with the ends.<\/p>\n
Moreover, in fact, the worthiness of an objective should be
\njustified by the decency of the chosen method for reaching it. As
\nAlbert Camus said, \"Indeed the end justifies the means. But what
\njustifies the end? The means!\" Therefore, there should be no
\nconflict between the two.<\/p>\n
Every conflict between the means and the end, if allowed to
\nproliferate, will certainly entail reactions destructive to
\ndemocracy. For this reason, it is hard to imagine a democracy
\nwithout high moral standards. Such high standards were
\ndemonstrated by the nobleness of Sultan Salah al-Din al-Ayyubi,
\nwho protected a soldier of his enemy (the Cross army) who strayed
\nbadly wounded into his tent. He cared for the soldier without
\nrevealing who he actually was--a commander of the Moslem army.
\nWhen the soldier recovered, he was released in peace.<\/p>\n
Another example was shown by the leaders of a branch of B'nai
\nBrith in the U.S. who protected a neo-Nazi activist who came to
\nconfess that with his group, he had murdered a number of Semitic
\nfigures over there.<\/p>\n
A sound mufakat ('consensus') based on honesty is the
\nobjective of every sound and honest musyawarah. Members of a
\ndemocratic musyawarah are required to master and practice the
\narts of sound and honest deliberation in order to reach sound and
\nhonest mufakat. Any consensus that has been reached by means of
\nengineering, manipulation or tactics involving conspiracies is
\nnot only a defective and dishonest consensus, but also a betrayal
\nof the values and spirit of democracy.<\/p>\n
Therefore, sincerity in the common endeavor to bring about a
\nsound social order for all is a central requisite. This factor
\ncontains the element of liberation from narrow vested-interests.<\/p>\n
Among all requirements for a decent living together we have
\nthe fulfillment of basic needs, namely, food, clothing and
\nshelter. As these three dimensions are related to socio-cultural
\naspects (that determine why we eat rice,wear sarong, kopiah and
\nkebaya, and live in a joglo house, for instance), the fulfillment
\nof these economic needs is not independent of socio-cultural
\nplanning.<\/p>\n
Members of a democratic society should be able to live with
\nplanned fulfillment of their basic needs, as well as to ensure
\nthat all the plans (such as, in a larger form, the Broad Outline
\nof State Policy, or GBHN) are in conformity with the objectives
\nand the practices of democracy. A check list for assessing the
\npractices of true democracy can be made based on universal human
\nvalues without disregarding the reality of cultural relativity.<\/p>\n
Cooperation, the attitude among members of society that
\nhighlights mutual trust, and the ties between various social
\ninstitutions are factors that demand a democracy.<\/p>\n
Fragmentation in society, marked by mutual distrust, not only
\ncauses inefficiency in a democratic life, but leads to patterns
\nof behavior that are against the basic characteristics of
\ndemocracy. Recognition of the existence of a freedom of con
\nscience and egalitarianism requires an optimistic outlook.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, a pessimistic outlook will make it
\ndifficult to avoid mistrust towards fellow human beings, and this
\nwill lead to reluctance to work together. In this connection, the
\nproblem of the colonial legacy that has not been entirely solved
\nin many formerly colonialized societies will be a source of
\nchallenges and constraints to common efforts to build democracy.<\/p>\n
In our daily life, we have become used to discussion on the
\nneed for teaching democracy. However, as we have had no real
\nexperience of a democratic life--which is further complicated by
\nthe fact that 'democracy' in this century is taken to mean modern
\ndemocracy, our perception of the teaching of democracy in general
\nis still limited to verbal indoctrination and spoon fed concepts.<\/p>\n
The frustration that members of our society have with the
\ndiscrepancy between what is preached and what is practiced --
\npublic figures have repeatedly called on us to prevent collusion
\nbetween business people and government officials, while they
\nthemselves are notably involved in such cases -- stems from the
\npowerful cultural tendency to \"teach\" others (feudalistically) in
\nour society.<\/p>\n
The resulting rhetoric also brings its own satisfying effect.
\nIt relieves those who have done wrong from guilt, as they have
\ntaught others not to carry out the very same crimes. Since the
\nviews of a modern democratic life exist in this age of universal
\nconsciousness, their values should be integrated elements in our
\neducation, not in the sense of making them archaic curricular
\ncontents but in the sense of putting them into practice in the
\nlived in experiences in our educational system.<\/p>\n
We should seriously begin -- although there is already an
\ninstitution that has done it -- to expose participants of our
\neducational system and the public in general to the tradition of
\nhaving differences of opinion and to the tradition of free and
\nopen deliberation for electing leaders and policy making.<\/p>\n
Democracy is not given, but it is integrated into our actual
\ndaily experience and experiment. Consequently, a democracy
\nrequires an open ideology, not an ideology that has been
\nformulated as \"once and for all\".<\/p>\n
On the contrary, a closed ideology, tends to become obsolete,
\nas was the case with communism. Therefore, Pancasila should be
\nviewed and perceived as an open ideology, independent of its
\nverbal formulation as written in the 1945 Constitution.<\/p>\n
The interpretation of its precepts should always be allowed to
\nchange in pace with the dynamics of society and its qualitative
\ndevelopment. The strength of democracy, with all its inherent
\nshortcomings, lies in its ability to correct itself, an ability
\nthat stems from its own openness.<\/p>\n
Dr. Nurcholish Madjid is chairman of Wakaf Paramadina
\nfoundation based in Jakarta.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/state-ideology-of-pancasila-faces-challenges-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}