Gus Dur welcomes differences

Gus Dur welcomes differences

By Harkiman Racheman

MEDAN (JP): In an unprecedented celebration for the Chinese
New Year at the Hyatt Regency Surabaya on Feb. 19, President
Abdurrahman Wahid (Gus Dur) said, in front of 1,200 followers of
Confucianism, that, "Differences must enrich our attempts to make
life in the nation better."

Acknowledging that diverse human characteristics are indeed
unalterably fundamental, Gus Dur added that such differences "can
be a blessing." "The more we differ," the Islamic scholar, turned
president, argued, "the clearer our unity will be."

Contrary to Gus Dur's almost "wishful thinking", the reality
is that Indonesians' different social, economic, political and
cultural backgrounds have not made the nation more unified. When
viewed against the ongoing interracial, intercultural and inter-
religious riots, it can only be concluded that such differences
may not be a blessing at all.

The multifaceted differences have not brought the country
together. With the celebrated absence of the once overpowerful
military, those differences have almost torn apart the ideal of a
unitary nation, as evident from the tragedies in parts of Aceh
and Maluku provinces. Diversity seems to have only contributed to
increasing cross-social animosity, misunderstanding and
suspicion.

Thus, the biggest problem remains the same: Why have all these
differences continued to bring us the reverse of what Gus Dur
said above?

The most logical solution to that continuing problem has not
been properly implemented. Differences of all kinds pose a more
worrying threat than anything else because the past and present
political elite have not addressed them with resolve and
consistent with values contained in the state's unanimously-
accepted ideological reference, Pancasila.

According to Pancasila, Indonesia is a democracy based on an
admittedly modern concept. This ideologically sets the country
apart from other feudal, traditional, theocratic, primordial or
monarchal systems of government. Indonesia, at least
conceptually, not only aims at accommodating differences, but
also encourages them to grow as well, to reach its lofty goal --
a prosperous and just society.

The coat of arms bearing the slogan Bhinneka Tunggal Ika which
literally translates into "diversity in unity" (not "unity in
diversity"), stresses the importance of "diversity" over the
imposition of "unity" and concretely depicts the above modernized
concept of the nation.

In fact, the raison d'etre underlying the formation of the
newly unified nation now known as Indonesia, as clearly
formulated by the founding fathers, was that all diverse
components could live and work peacefully together to achieve
prosperity and social justice.

Diversity covers an extremely broad spectrum. The archipelago,
once known as "the pearls of the equator", comprises numerous
traditional, cultural, racial and spiritual elements. Like its
exhaustive flora and fauna, those miscellaneous resources and
diverse social, economic, political and ideological persuasions
characterize the nation from the easternmost town of Merauke to
the westernmost town of Sabang.

Even though diversity can offer a priceless potential, as
exemplified by some more developed multiracial countries, it has
not been fully utilized here. Instead, it has been abused to
entertain some of the most twisted minds of past and present
political puppets.

The Old Order (1945-1967) under first president Sukarno did
not prepare a necessary paradigm for future power holders in
managing society's differences. Though successfully laying the
philosophical and ideological foundation, the Old Order did not
effect the principle of Bhineka Tunggal Ika.

Afterwards, the three-decade rule of second president
Soeharto's New Order (1968-1998) disregarded diversity. It
overemphasized forced unity or pseudo-uniformity at the expense
of conducive pluralism. Hence, the ideal of "diversity" was for
the first time formally subdued and supplanted by that of
"unity."

By nurturing unhealthy social, cultural, economic, political,
racial and religious sentiments, the autocratic government of the
New Order successfully subdued diverse anti-establishment
aspirations, especially from such resource rich regions as Aceh
and Irian Jaya. However, Soeharto eventually failed and his true
colors were finally exposed.

Worse, the regime's downfall in mid-1998 led the nation to the
verge of disintegration. But, when the pro-Soeharto military
finally fell from grace, all kinds of new voices were released,
including the formerly unheard voices of minority groups.

They demanded at all costs their basic rights to a decent life
and freedom of expression -- proving again that diversity can
never be terminated by force, no matter how powerful and corrupt.

The transitional government under B.J. Habibie (1998-1999)
failed to hold together the disintegrating country and was
rejected. Taking sides with certain Islamic groups and supportive
interest groups, it unfairly promoted sectarian politics and
abandoned pluralism.

Habibie's short-lived government, in which minority interests
were not represented, especially those of Christians and Chinese
Indonesians, became a threat to the country's emotional unity.

His poorly conceived nation building concept of pribumi
referred to any Indonesian who devotes his/her entire life for
the country's welfare. This changed the conventional meaning in
such a way that Habibie emotionally divided the nation into
conflicting groups of confusingly classified natives and non-
natives.

Now, with President Abdurrahman's democratically elected
government, for the first time in post-independence history,
diversity has been formally acknowledged and officially
accommodated.

With this tremendous political will and with the current
legal, economic and political reforms, Gus Dur's appeal for the
nation to live in an all-enriching and all-embodying harmonious
diversity can hopefully unite our country once and for all.

National disintegration will not occur due to differences
alone; such differences are fundamental to life. But, national
break-up could occur from the way those differences were handled
and exploited by the previous powerholder. Massive disintegration
is only possible if those differences are intolerably abused for
a certain political agenda.

Given that plurality occurs at all levels of national life,
any Indonesian government would have to be naive or insensible if
it imposed cultural amalgamation or forced assimilation on its
multi-cultural and multi-religious citizenry.

Implying an in-depth understanding of human existential
realities, Gus Dur's statement above constitutes at its best the
government's most sincere acknowledgement of multi-level
differences, a thought Soeharto would never have entertained.

This appeal for our crisis-struck nation to accept, tolerate
and comprehend differences is in accordance with universally
accepted philosophies of today's world.

Like it or not, the degree to which the government is willing
to welcome differences is also largely reflective of its
readiness to lead a modern democratic country.

The writer graduated from Victoria University at Wellington,
New Zealand. Based in Medan, he is currently a university teacher
and freelance writer.