G-30-S tragedy: Between amnesia and lustration

G-30-S tragedy: Between amnesia and lustration

Mochtar Buchori, Jakarta

We all know what "amnesia" means, but "lustration" is a
strange word to many Indonesians. "Amnesia" means "partial or
total loss of memory". "Lustration" means "purification". The
meaning of the verb form of the word, "lustrate", is "to purify".

I came across these two words in an article about the former
Federal Republic of Czechoslovakia. In his inaugural address as
the first president of Czechoslovakia, Vaclav Havel made an
appeal to his people to forgive each other for the mistakes the
nation made in the past. He asked his people not to distrust each
other, not to hate each other and above all not to seek revenge.

He stated that in his opinion every citizen of the country was
guilty and responsible for the rise of a Communist government in
1948. He asked his people to concentrate their energy on the
problems of the future, and not constantly to accuse each other
for the past.

This policy was called the "amnesty-and-amnesia" policy. It
can be translated as the "forgive-and-forget" policy. This policy
proved to be a failure. Under the protection of this policy
bureaucrats from the old Communist regime remained in their
positions, and they used these positions to obstruct any new
policies that might jeopardize their personal interests.

The public became restless and a new movement was born under
the name of the "lustration movement", aimed at "purifying" the
government of the cronies from the old Communist regime. This
movement also failed to achieve its goals. The end result was
that the Federal Republic of Czechoslovakia was split into two
independent republics, i.e. the Czech Republic and the Republic
of Slovakia.

This story about Czechoslovakia, and the great leader Vaclav
Havel, made me think of our own situation in Indonesia. Forty
years ago, on Sept. 30, 1965, a national tragedy occurred. It
used to be referred to as the "G-30-S affair", G-30-S standing
for Gerakan 30 September, literally meaning "the September 30th
Movement".

The political power that came out of this tragedy was called
the Orde Baru -- meaning the "New Order" -- and it quickly
proclaimed that the tragedy was an abortive coup d'etat by the
now defunct Indonesian Communist Party (PKI).

In academic circles, however, there is a countertheory that it
was a preemptive attempt by political forces rallying behind the
PKI to abort an imminent coup by the Council of Generals (Dewan
Jendral). Which of these two claims is closer to the truth is
thus far unresolved. Historians must still complete their
academic task of uncovering the mysteries that surround this
affair.

Many changes have happened since this bloody political affair
happened. But these changes have still not brought about a
society that is close enough to the idea of a "just and
prosperous society". In spite of all the economic progress made
thus far, we still cannot call our society a prosperous one.
There are still too many Indonesians who live below the poverty
line. And in spite of all the legal reforms attempted thus far we
still cannot call our society a just one. There are still too
many injustices inflicted on the common people.

This raises the question of whether we have learned enough
from the horrible affair of 40 years ago, and from the tumultuous
aftermath of this affair. Admittedly, we did learn a number of
important things, but we failed to learn one very important
lesson; i.e. the lesson about democracy building and about
transforming our political culture.

We learned to reject totalitarianism, but we failed to prevent
an authoritarian government. We are also not aware that we failed
to learn that democracy is not only reserved for the political
elite, but that it aims primarily to protect the interests of the
common people.

We have failed to learn that democracy cannot be built on the
basis of force, but that it requires the consent of the people.
Consent cannot be obtained by threat or intimidation. The genuine
consent that is the basis of a lasting democracy can come only
from citizens who are fully aware of their rights and
obligations.

Looking at the ways our political system works today, and the
level of political literacy obtained by the people, it is really
no wonder that we constantly repeat the mistakes of the past. To
me, the important question in this regard is whether we will ever
have the ability to learn from our past mistakes.

Our failure to learn the important lessons of the 1965 tragedy
may also be caused by the fact that so far there has been no
sincere or honest historical account of the affair. What we have
thus far is, to use the expression of Lord Michael Howard of
Oxford, "instant judgment" rather than an "historical account".
And instant judgment always tell us more about the parties
judging than the situation judged.

The task of our historians is not easy. For one thing,
historians must distinguish between "the significant" and "the
transitory", and determine whether an event is purely fortuitous
or indicative of a long-term trend.

But no matter how difficult the task of historians may be,
they are the only ones who can provide the nation with reliable
guidelines regarding how the nation should proceed in the future
to find true answers to our present problems.

The writer has a doctorate in education from Harvard
University.