Ban on communism a display of vindictiveness

Ban on communism a display of vindictiveness

J. Soedjati Djiwandono, Political Analyst, Jakarta,
soedjati@cbn.net.id

If there were anything so senseless, inconsistent, illogical,
unfair, unjust or ignorant in this country, it must be the
continued ban on communism or Marxism-Leninism. It is senseless,
because if it were true that communism were our enemy, it would
be all the more important that we all knew what it was all about.
We should understand what kind of an animal it is. "Know your
enemy!"

Former president Soeharto dissolved the Indonesian Communist
Party (PKI) on March 12, 1966, on the basis of the Supersemar
(March 11 Order), whose actual existence is now in doubt. The
decision was based on the allegation -- never proven "beyond any
reasonable doubt" -- that the PKI was the mastermind of the
"Gestapu affair," the alleged coup d'etat staged by the PKI.
There was no mention of communist ideology.

Only in July 1996 was the ban on the "teaching" and
"dissemination" of communism banned by the Provisional
Consultative Assembly (MPRS) through its Decree No. XXV. In fact,
the term used, Marxism/Leninism (rather than Marxism-Leninism),
was an indication of the Assembly's degree of ignorance.

One should not ignore the historical fact that Sukarno once
banned the Masyumi Party (apart from the Indonesian Socialist
Party, or PSI) for its alleged involvement in the Darul Islam
(DI/TII) armed rebellion. However, Sukarno never banned Islam,
the kind of Islam adhered to by the party, and thus its prime
motive for its alleged revolt. Nowadays, rightly or wrongly,
terrorism is often associated with "militant" or "fundamentalist"
Islam, however defined, but while we are committed to fighting
terrorism, we do not ban "militant" Islam.

It was also illogical, absurd, and ridiculous. The "Gestapu
affair" was understood to be an armed rebellion, a violent coup
d'etat against the lawful government. This in itself was a
ridiculous accusation, since President Sukarno, who should have
been the main target of such an attempt, was himself suspected of
having been involved in the "coup d'etat" -- against himself!

Indeed, Indonesians, who mostly claim or are said and known to
be religious, tolerant and humane, turn out to be most
unforgiving and vindictive when it comes to the issue of
communism. Propaganda against communism has almost invariably
made use of terrible cases of atrocities perpetrated by alleged
communists.

However, atrocities are certainly not the monopoly of
communists. The massacre of hundreds of thousands of alleged
communists and the detention and torture of many more without
trial, many of them for years on end, were no less brutal and
barbaric acts. They were the gravest debts of this nation to
humanity that have never been, and perhaps never will or can be
fully repaid.

Would it be possible, one might rightly wonder, if lifting the
ban on communism would amount to admitting our own faults, shame
and feelings of guilt, and at the same time recognizing the
innocence of so many of the victims of our own atrocities?
Wouldn't it be safe just to bury our heads in the sand like
ostriches?

In that light, the public apology of Abdurrahman Wahid (Gus
Dur) -- when he was president, and therefore on behalf of the
nation -- to the victims of the massacre and unlawful detention
of many alleged communists, as well as to their surviving family
members, was the right gesture. It was the right step toward a
long and probably painful process of national reconciliation, if
hatred and vengeance from generation to generation should not
forever obsess the nation.

Indeed, in hindsight, the emotional reaction on the part of
the people in general to the "Gestapu affair" and their traumatic
experience of having a number of Army generals brutally murdered
in the coup attempt, allegedly masterminded and staged by the
PKI, was understandable. For one thing, however, it was
instigated by the exaggerated and excessive propaganda on the
allegations, from the start, of the decisive role of the PKI in
the "Gestapu affair".

For another, it was the exploitation of the usually excitable
religious sentiment of the people, as if communism had much to do
with religion at all. Communism, after all, was not born because
of the challenge of religion, but that of oppression and
injustice.

However communism is understood, be it as an ideology, a
belief system, or a political movement, it was wrong in the first
place to ban it. It was a violation of human rights. It was as
wrong as imposing a belief system on anyone, for such an
imposition is to cultivate the seed of hypocrisy. It is also a
violation of human rights. Indeed, one may believe in anything or
not to believe in anything, as long as one does not encroach on
anyone else's rights or disturb public order.

Indeed, to prevent the emergence of communism, be it an
ideology, a belief system, or a political movement in the form of
a communist party, it is never effective to ban it -- which only
serves to indicate our own lack of self-confidence and a lack of
confidence in our own ideology, belief, religion or political
system. The most effective way would be to promote social
justice. The state must deliver the goods.

Thus, we can prevent the victory of the communists by pulling
the rug from under their feet. The failure of the communist
parties to win a majority in general elections in Western
European countries such as France, Italy and Great Britain, are
cases in point. They are lacking in issues that constitute the
interests of the people.

Thus we have no need to be vigilant against "underground
communists" or against the possible rise of communism or the PKI.
We need to be vigilant against ourselves. We need to be vigilant
over our own state, government or political system. We must see
to it that the state delivers the goods.

On the future of communism, Geoffrey Stern, my lecturer when I
was doing my doctoral study in international communism at the
London School of Economics and Political Science some decades
ago, wrote, "ultimately, what matters, surely, is how responsive
a system is to the needs of the individuals it is designed to
serve, rather than what people choose to call it".

More importantly, wherever there is perceived injustice,
oppression, exploitation and abuse of power, there will still be
a need for an organization of political protest armed with an
emotionally reassuring set of action-based theories, and, in this
sense, Stern writes (in The Rise and Decline of International
Communism, 1990), the future of many a communist party is
probably assured, even if "communism" and "international
communism" are not.