The nation needs to reformulate its identity<\/p>\n
If society is taken to be an organized set of individuals with
\na given way of life, culture is that way of life. Society
\nemphasizes the human component, the aggregate of people and the
\nrelations between them. Culture emphasizes the component of
\naccumulated resources, immaterial as well as material, which the
\npeople inherit, employ, transmute, add to, and transmit.<\/p>\n
-- Raymond W. Firth<\/p>\n
Observing developments in Indonesia during the last three
\nyears, one wonders where this country is heading for. The
\nmultidimensional crisis that the country is facing goes on
\nunabated despite all the fuss made about political, social, and
\neconomical reforms being undertaken.<\/p>\n
The economy does not seem to be moving anywhere. The political
\nscene is more preoccupied with power struggles between the
\ngovernment and the House of Representatives. The whole legal
\nsystem has turned into an open market where rules and regulations
\nare mere commodities with negotiable prices. Implementation of
\nregional autonomy is degrading into political parochialism, where
\none can easily see the replacement of Jakarta's centralism with
\ncentralism of the regions.<\/p>\n
More and more people are asking themselves whether Indonesia
\nwill still exist in the next five years or so. The Jakarta Post's
\npanel of experts mulled this worrying question. It boils down to
\nthe fact that there has been no serious discourse on reviewing
\nthe concept of Indonesia from the cultural point of view.<\/p>\n
Indonesia is a very young nation. Its population of more than
\n210 million people is spread across three time zones, consists of
\nmore than 200 ethnic groups, and speaks more than 300 different
\nlanguages. Commonality - except for the fact that it was a
\ncollection of Dutch colonies for more than three centuries - is
\nhard to find among such diverse groups of people. Consequently,
\nIndonesia, proclaimed an independent nation in 1945, has not
\ndeveloped naturally.<\/p>\n
Indonesia's founding fathers envisioned the importance of
\nnation building. They saw the need of developing a common
\nattitude, will, viewpoint, values, character and behavior - in
\nshort, the contents of culture - which contribute to the goal of
\nliving together as a nation, of being Indonesian. For the nascent
\nIndonesian nation, that goal was formulated in the will to
\npromote and realize cita-cita persatuan Indonesia (the ideal of
\nIndonesian unity).<\/p>\n
During the Old Order of Sukarno, the first president (1945-
\n1966), the efforts to popularize the cita-cita persatuan
\nIndonesia took the form of - among other things - fostering the
\ncharacter of a young revolutionary and progressive Indonesian.
\nThe emphasis was on a never-ending revolution. Anybody who did
\nnot live up to that image was considered and treated as an enemy
\nof the nation.<\/p>\n
During the New Order of Soeharto, the second president (1967-
\n1998), a different approach was used, i.e. the character of
\nmanusia pembangunan (man of development). The emphasis was on
\neconomic development. Anybody who was against economic
\ndevelopment, as defined by the government, was considered
\nsubversive.<\/p>\n
Sukarno's years were characterized by political indoctrination
\nusing Sukarno's collection of speeches. Similarly, Soeharto's
\nyears were characterized by penataran BP7 (indoctrination of the
\nstate guidelines, Pancasila). Both emphasized the superiority of
\nthe state above the sovereignty of the people. Both disregarded
\nthe importance of culture as the means of coordinating,
\nintegrating, regulating and directing human endeavor toward the
\ncommon goal of the Indonesian nation, indeed of mankind: a more
\nsecure and better existence.<\/p>\n
Both did not bring the nation anywhere near the cita-cita
\npersatuan Indonesia as described earlier.<\/p>\n
The coming into existence of Indonesia was like a journey of
\ndifferent groups of people coming from different villages toward
\na new dream village called Indonesia. The nascent grouping had no
\nidea at all about what Indonesia would be like, what would be its
\nsociopolitical climate, how would they live together in harmony,
\nfeeling more secure and comfortable.<\/p>\n
It all happened so suddenly back in 1945. Nobody knew how to
\nlive in the new village, what were the regulations, how should
\none behave toward another, what language should be used, which
\nethnic tradition should be maintained, which tribal wisdom should
\nbe adhered to in conflict resolution, and so forth.<\/p>\n
The first five decades of Indonesia's existence did not
\nproperly answer those questions. It was a classic case of a
\nculture in the making, but was not taken care of properly. Former
\nattitudes, character, value systems, and viewpoints originating
\nfrom former villages were kept under the rug, even though those
\nelements over the years had proved to be contradictory to the
\nneeds of modern Indonesia.<\/p>\n
It is not surprising that when things go wrong in the new
\nvillage, the old sectarian attributes resurface, easily provoking
\nand creating havoc.<\/p>\n
Indeed, culture is not a medicine that can cure all kinds of
\ncivilization diseases. The panel of experts describes culture as
\nsimilar to jamu, or traditional herbal potions. Jamu does not
\nheal diseases. What jamu can do is provide elements or
\npreconditions to keep people healthy, to make people more
\nresistant to diseases.<\/p>\n
Using culture as a tool to better understand the fragility of
\nIndonesia in the making, the panel of experts proposed several
\noptions deemed crucial in the reform agenda.<\/p>\n
First of all is the lack of leadership, which is obvious in
\nyoung people's organizations, in religious institutions, in the
\nbureaucracy, civilian as well as military, in political parties
\nand business associations. The current leadership in almost all
\ninstitutions is not only weak; it is deteriorating to the extent
\nof becoming close to collapse at this stage.<\/p>\n
It is the result of the habit of looking up to one figure in
\nthe narrow sense, as people tend to feel uneasy or deem it
\nimproper to demand the accountability of their leader. The
\nattribute or status of a religious figure, a charismatic
\ncharacter, the title of professor or other dignitaries does not
\nguarantee the existence of leadership qualities.<\/p>\n
Second, cultivating future leaders in most institutions seems
\nto be of lesser priority compared to other activities within
\ninstitutions. There are lots of examples where \"fit and proper
\ntests\" as applied by many government institutions really insult
\ncommon sense. In many instances, even bad track records have not
\nclosed off higher positions for many highly-connected
\nindividuals. Non-government organizations have not fared much
\nbetter.<\/p>\n
Third, something fundamental has to be done to change the
\nattitude, behavior and cultural orientation within the Indonesian
\nbureaucracy. The bureaucracy should develop a system to make sure
\nthat each of its members lives up to a high standard of
\nefficiency, austerity, diligence. And of course it goes without
\nsaying that its members must not steal public money. The fact
\nthat firing people is alien to the bureaucracy is an obsolete
\nattitude and should be turned upside down.<\/p>\n
Last but not least, the politicization of religion as
\npracticed in the legislature, on the streets and elsewhere should
\ncome to an end. Experience proves that the politicization of
\nreligion has never benefited any religion, instead it always
\nabuses religion for the narrow interests of specific individuals
\nor groups.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/the-nation-needs-to-reformulate-its-identity-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}