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.