Grappling with the power over our consciousness

JAKARTA (JP): How far have we achieved independence, in the true sense of the word? This was one question posed to historian Taufik Abdullah:

His reply first described the "sense" itself, how the term has been variously used over the years. He concluded that we're still in a process of completing the initial agenda of obtaining democratic freedom and economic independence.

Meanwhile, citizens must still overcome the "hegemony of consciousness" inherited from former presidents Sukarno and Soeharto, he said. Excerpts from Taufik's responses to The Jakarta Post:

We must be aware that independence, kemerdekaan, is not a neutral or objective word. It is determined by two factors: the changes in its understanding through history, and people's ideological point of view.

The concept of independence was first very simple.

Around 1910 the term vrijheit, or freedom, was used in the women's movement in West Sumatra to mean the freedom to gain an equal education.

Then, when the awareness of colonialism was introduced around 1912 by (Dutch activist) Douwess Dekker, Tjipto Mangunkusumo and others, independence was referred to as freedom from the colonialists. However at that time the concept of the Indonesian nation was not yet clear.

What Dekker and others at the time meant as "nation" was also simple. Hindia only differentiated between "settlers" of the Netherlands-Indies, including foreigners, and "nonsettlers" or sojourners.

"Independence" was only clearly linked to the name of a nation called Indonesia in 1924, as introduced by the organization Perhimpunan Indonesia under the student activist who was to become the first vice president, Mohammad Hatta. The concept was "Indonesia Merdeka Sekarang" (Independence Now for Indonesia) -- the nation's name was clear, and it was also clear that it wanted to be independent.

Since then it was obvious to everyone that the nation state's aim was to realize a democratic political system and achieve economic independence -- regardless of the debate that went on and on around these issues.

So, from the outset, "Indonesia" was a program for the future, not a finished product. It was an agenda which climaxed on Proclamation Day, Aug. 17 1945, followed by the revolution (defending independence).

But don't forget that Aug. 17 confirmed the victory of those who wanted to create a new world -- Indonesian nationalists -- in the debate with those who sought "cultural nationalism". Hatta used this term, and so do I; it means an aspiration for the rise of the glorious past. Sukarno called it aristocratic nationalism.

Aug. 17 and the revolution which followed was a clear break with all previous battles or rebellions.

Both in substance and ideals, earlier battles like the Diponegoro War (Central, East Java, 1925/1930) aimed to restore the loss of the cosmic order (involving nobles and monarchies) -- while the revolution was a struggle to create a future of political democracy and economic independence.

But the revolution was also an aberration, a social revolution whose participants aspired for freedom from the burden of an entrenched, feudalistic social hierarchy. Thus what occurred were events such as the Peristiwa Tiga Daerah (Three regions incident in Brebes, Pemalang and Tegal, Central Java in 1945 in which local authorities were replaced by those chosen by residents). But the most important goal was political independence and the ability to create a new society.

In this context a parliamentary system was tried. But there was political instability throughout virtually the whole period. Efforts to nationalize big Dutch companies failed and the period only saw fierce competition between political parties.

During the 1950s the country was still dealing with remnants of colonial rule, like overtaking West Irian in 1963. We were still overshadowed by the colonial time bomb. These issues included the incorporation of KNIL (Dutch military) soldiers into the national army which marginalized guerrilla fighters, the RMS issue (South Maluku rebellion), APRA (Angkatan Perang Ratu Adil rebellion led by Capt. R. Westerling) and other uprisings.

In addition to this was the embattled economy ... and eventually Sukarno decided he wanted a new kind of democracy, "Guided Democracy".

The justification for this was that "parliamentary democracy was not suitable to the national personality," and that the parliamentary system "could not capture the elan of a multiple and complex revolution ..."

So while Sukarno wanted full independence, his concept of "national personality" slipped back into cultural nationalism, in contrast to what revolution is about, which is defying rules.

The result was a paradigm of conflict full of hyperbole, violent language, and highly nationalistic symbols. There always had to be antagonistic elements -- Old Forces, New Forces and the like.

He practically formulated authoritarian state nationalism, by imposing unity. In the end this led to the national tragedy (1965 bloodbath following the failed coup attempt by the Indonesian Communist Party).

The New Order was then born on the ruins of the national tragedy. Soeharto offered the concept of technocratic, developmental nationalism, saying revolution was not the answer to the country's problems, with the support of the army.

But the idea of national personality was too attractive to be rejected; Soeharto came up with "national identity". However, with this he only continued the earlier centralization of power, and the blurring of the realm between values and idioms in society, and the power and constitution of the state.

Greedy

These were combined, as was indicated by the compulsory Pancasila ideology courses.

So while Sukarno enforced a paradigm of conflict, Soeharto imposed a paradigm of consensus. Language was no longer violent but full of euphemism. For instance, people were not "killed," but "diamankan (taken for security)"; or people did not "starve," instead they "lacked food". With both the language of hyperbole and euphemism, nothing was real.

Under Soeharto, we experienced imposed hegemony of consensus. The concept of the "development trilogy" stated that stability came before growth and equity; organizations were forced to accept the principle of one ideology (asas tunggal).

So both the Old Order and the New Order were "greedy states". They were not satisfied with obedient, law-abiding citizens, but they also wanted to conquer the consciousness of the nation.

In the last few years we witnessed the deterioration of such power with the banning of three magazines in 1994, the violent takeover of the Indonesian Democratic Party headquarters in 1996, the riots in many areas and last year's poorly conducted election.

Then the crisis hit... and we are now still in the process of seeking independence. Everyone's in a state of euphoria in a negative sense, like condemning Soeharto.

As long as we have not installed a strong foundation for the future, as long as we are too obsessed with the mistakes of the past, we will never be really independent. We need a broad mind to overcome the hegemony of consciousness and work together for the future. (anr)