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.