Ambalat, nationalism and popular interests

Ambalat, nationalism and popular interests

Israr Iskandar, Padang

The fact that people's nationalism is still quite strong is
quite admirable, given the host of problems the country is at
present facing. The Ambalat case has at least demonstrated how
the spirit of nationalism has "pushed back" waves of protests
against the increase in fuel prices. Learning from the case of
Sipadan-Ligitan, two islands that Indonesia has had to give up,
the Indonesian government does not want to lose any more of its
territory to Malaysia.

However the rising sense of nationalism must continue to be
actualized not only in the context of protecting the state's
territory from external threats but also in the context of
maintaining national sovereignty as a whole. In this case,
national sovereignty also means the sovereignty and honor of the
entire nation. Therefore, the spirit of nationalism must also be
aimed at strengthening citizens' sovereignty and honor in the
economic, political, social, cultural and educational fields.

The problem is that until now the expression of nationalism in
Indonesia has been limited to security matters, more particularly
threats to the integrity of the state's territory, both
internally (separatism) or externally. In fact, nationalism and
national interests can also be interpreted as the spirit to
prioritize popular interests.

In this respect, there are several examples of how nationalism
and national interests have served as a mere slogan in the
interests of the political elite. Take, for example, the recent
increase in fuel prices, which the government claims it has
introduced in the interests of the poor. The disadvantaged people
are supposed to benefit from the funds generated by the fuel
subsidy cut through health care, education and improved
infrastructure. Based on past experience, however, compensation
funds for the poor have never reached the intended target.

It is quite reasonable, therefore, to doubt these claims.
Ironically, when the people, including the poor who have been
promised the compensation funds, are protesting against the
increase in fuel prices because it will make their lives more
difficult, members of the House of Representatives have, instead,
asked for a pay increase.

Besides the political leaders, the economic leaders have also
rushed to the government to ask for "compensation" in the form of
tax concessions.

Nationalism is also a paradox when it come to how national and
local leaders respond to the issue of privatization, a program
that has been accelerated in the present era of reform. The
supporters of this program claim that the privatization of state-
owned enterprises is in the interest of the nation. Meanwhile,
those objecting to this program claim that their actions are in
the people's interests and they have even put forward issues
related to economic nationalism.

After the program of privatization has been implemented, the
poor remain poor: The poverty level and the rate of unemployment
remain high. On the other hand, the argument put forward by those
who are against privatization that the government should own the
majority shares in state-owned enterprises should also raise
doubts. Until now, most state-owned enterprises have shown poor
performance and corrupt practices.

The local leaders have also frequently claimed that they act
in the interests of the public while in fact they are protecting
their own interests. This was true, for example, in the case of
members of West Sumatra Legislative Assembly involved in
corruption practices regarding the regional budget funds. They
insinuated that non-governmental organizations, which had brought
up cases against them, were funded by foreign parties.

They said there was a conspiracy by foreign quarters to corner
Muslims because many of these corrupt councillors were top-
ranking members of Muslim parties and some were even noted
religious elders. Obviously, they turned the facts upside down.
While facing the law, these councillors still had the gall to
claim that they acted in the interests of the public (the
Muslims).

Paradoxes are also seen when national interests are touted to
justify oppression of the people. Defending the Unitary State of
the Republic of Indonesia (NKRI) has even been used as a means to
justify human rights violations by state apparatuses against
civilians.

The military is indeed obligated to defend the national
integrity of the state from the threat of separatism as has
happened in Aceh and Papua but crimes against humanity by the
military must be dealt with according to the law and should never
be hidden behind the slogan of defending the territorial
integrity of the country.

During Soeharto's tenure, territorial integrity was used to
legitimize efforts to maintain a centralized system. In fact, it
is this centralized system that had brought corruption into the
government. Centralized administration even led to a wider gap in
development between Java and areas outside Java and the divide
between the rich and the poor.

In this context, we have our worries that the territorial
integrity, which is often heard amid the issues of
decentralization and special autonomy (as in the cases of Papua
and Aceh) in the last few years, is perhaps intended to protect
the interests and the privileges of certain elite groups in
Jakarta. They realize that their interests will be threatened
once the policy of regional autonomy and special autonomy is
properly implemented.

Nationalism is not just for the sake of nationalism itself.
Neither should nationalism be used in the interests of a few
people in an elite group. In reality, nationalism should be
implemented in the interests of all citizens. The people
themselves have kept a strong sense of nationalism, as reflected
in their response to the Ambalat case. But in the case of
Indonesian migrant workers (for example) the people never feel
that they are citizens.

It is our job in future to make sure that the actualization of
nationalism may link people's basic needs in the economic,
social, political and other fields.

The writer is a lecturer of political science at Andalas
University, Padang.