Dealing with the communist legacy

The fear of communism has resurfaced in Indonesia, as reflected in recent remarks made by a number of top government officials. Among them was Armed Forces Commander Gen. Feisal Tanjung, who told his subordinates last month to be alert to the danger of "communist activities." Scholar Franz Magnis-Suseno explores the issue.

JAKARTA (JP): Since the crushing of the coup attempt of the "September 30 Movement" on Oct. 1, 1965, appeals for vigilance against communism have become part of the official vocabulary of the New Order.

Indeed, for all we know the Indonesian Communist Party had a massive involvement in that coup -- which, with hindsight, would not really come as such a surprise. Tensions were already high. All through 1964 and 1965 communist influence had been growing steadily. The top cadres of the communist party were serious Marxist-Leninists. They were out for the dictatorship of the proletariat, meaning the dictatorship of the party.

As a consequence, the communist party was banned and the spreading of Marxism and Leninism forbidden. Since then, anything smelling even remotely of communism has been resolutely suppressed. It should be noted that this uncompromising anti- communism represented a fundamental consensus of practically the whole non-communist spectrum of Indonesian political society.

Under these circumstances, appeals for vigilance were appropriate. But now, thirty years later, after Indonesia, under the leadership of President Soeharto, has been transformed into a stable, self-confident and economically solid country, the question arises whether such appeals are not in danger of becoming counter-productive.

Not that we should ease up on communism. The totalitarian, anti-religious ideology of Marxism-Leninism definitely has no place in a Pancasila state. And, probably, there are still some old communist cadres around that survived the holocaust. But is there still a serious danger that they could stage a comeback?

It is generally agreed that any kind of physical comeback is out of the question. But what about communist ideology? Couldn't it be spread clandestinely and slowly subvert the minds and hearts of the people?

An ideology is not some kind of a mascot you can take out of the closet at will. In order to become a motivating power, an ideology must offer something, must be future-oriented. It has to look young and invincible. But has communism any chance of looking like that again?

Globally, communism has long lost out. Even before the collapse of the Soviet empire it had lost its spell. During the past 15 years, not one of the many new revolutionary movements entered world stage under the banner of communism or Marxism. The few surviving communist regimes in eastern Asia look more like something out of Jurassic Park than possible models for the future. The ideological forces that are now driving movements, civil wars or terrorist brotherhoods are no longer Marxist in nature, but are of an ethnic or religious orientation.

In Indonesia, too, communism seems to have been thoroughly discredited. Not only have 30 years of official anti-communism had their effect. The decisive point is that, in the eyes of the people, the communist party proved a paper tiger, or, in the language of the wayang shadow play, a self-proclaimed ratu adil, or "righteous king," who brought only death and destruction on the country. Communism appeared to be a charm without magical powers that could not save the faithful. At the same time, Indonesia achieved its impressive progress only after it rejected communism.

Our concern here is the younger generation. That generation is critical, often fed up with everything "official," and, of course, they have no experience of the communist threat in Indonesia. They are extremely skeptical toward all official talk, including talk about communism.

I myself often meet students who are genuinely astonished when I tell them that there was indeed once a communist danger and that at that time I, myself, was quite concerned about a possible communist takeover. Some of these students believe that the whole communism issue has been invented by the government, even though they have all been through at least three Pancasila ideology courses.

This means nothing else than that there is a dangerous credibility gap between the generations. Now this gap cannot be closed by putting them through yet another Pancasila course.

There is something else. Since communism is outlawed, students really do not know a thing about it. But precisely because of that, and probably because the government says it is a bad thing, some of them become attracted to or idealize Marxist concepts.

This is a serious situation. Repeating the old admonitions again and again could make young people curious to find out for themselves what kind of creature is so much feared by the older generation. Not more talk is needed from us. Rather, honesty is called for.

Thus, for instance, we have to stop the despicable habit of accusing individuals or NGOs who defend human rights, sympathize with workers or come to the assistance of farmers in land disputes, as being "infected" with communism. If we don't want our youngsters to become communist sympathizers, then let us stop giving them the impression that communism means solidarity with the victims of injustice.

We also should do what is expressly provided for in decree number 25/MPRS/1966: Allow the scientific study of the theories of Marxism and Communism. Why should we be afraid to let our young intellectuals find out for themselves?

Dr. Franz Magnis-Suseno SJ teaches social philosophy at the Driyarkara School of Philosophy in Jakarta.