Human autonomy: Essence of liberty

By Ignas Kleden

JAKARTA (JP): In the history of philosophy there are so many ideas which are loaded with liberating forces. One can name enlightenment, individualism, rationalism, the courage to be, renaissance, humanism and liberation. Among them, however, freedom and autonomy are the most powerful, because they have not only enlightened the intellectual firmament of human consciousness, but have also created many political upheavals. Also their antitheses create an equally shaking turbulence: dependence, oppression or colonization. Why is this the case?

In Indonesia the word Merdeka, or freedom with a big exclamation mark, was once an official greeting among freedom fighters. The word symbolized the common struggle for independence. When the word was spoken, a person was supposed to become a comrade in arms.

Comrades had the same idea in their head, the same goal in their heart, they were prepared to share the pain and face possible death on the battlefields. The word united people in solidarity.

The word also became a demarcation between those who struggled for it and those who stood in the way or attempted to end the push. For opponents, the word Merdeka was nothing but a noisy commotion waged by unsatisfied rebels who tried to seduce people away from established peace and order.

Why freedom? This was of course a serious question put forward by the colonial masters. They seemed to believe (perhaps well- meaningly) that what they had done for the country was a great deal more than the most appealing promises of people who cried Merdeka.

On the other hand, if this was a mere illusion, why did the people take it so seriously? Why were they willing to surrender everything, including their lives?

Sukarno, one of the most prominent leaders of Indonesian's national movement, made the concept of freedom digestible for even the most illiterate people in the remote countryside. Freedom, he said, was a bridge, or even a golden bridge. People had to pass the bridge first, in order to be able to do other things for themselves and their society.

In other words, independence from colonial rule was a precondition, a conditio sine qua non, for those who were determined to improve their lives. Without meeting that condition, other social ideals would become nothing but a seductive mirage.

In hindsight, Sukarno's metaphor was a social and political explanation which dealt with the relationship between freedom and society, or rather between freedom and nation. During the struggle for independence there was not much time to think about individual rights or even personal development. However, after passing the golden bridge, and after founding the nation-state, every citizen could raise another legitimate question. What does freedom bring to individuals? What difference does it make for a person to grow up in a colonial society instead of an independent state?

The answer is autonomy. A free country or an independent state is one which possesses autonomy. A free individual or an independent citizen has his or her autonomy. The realization of freedom, therefore, can be measured in terms of attaining autonomy.

And how would Sukarno answer those questions? Only in freedom and with independence can a country have the autonomy to develop self-determination, for better or for worse.

It is not a pragmatic reason which justifies freedom and independence but rather a fundamental one. Pragmatically, the national struggle could have been dropped if the colonial masters persuaded national leaders and the people that they had better experience and equipment to build a new society.

This is not intended to propagate an aimless romanticism in the name of national independence. The point is that among national leaders there was no principal difference. It was a matter of when and how independence should occur. This was clear in the differences of opinion between Sukarno and Sjahrir (and possibly Hatta as well).

Sukarno firmly believed that independence was of primary importance. For this reason he argued that the sooner Indonesia became free and independent, the better it would be.

Sjahrir, on the other hand, was realistic enough to see that building a nation, starting a modern administration and planning a new economy was something to prepare for. That is why he suggested that Indonesia should take its time so, for example, the new administration's personnel could be trained and possess the necessary skills and know-how.

The differences between the leaders were reflected in the strategies they used. Sukarno, in his charismatic way, was building solidarity among the people. Sjahrir and Hatta embarked upon a more systematic national education aimed at producing a national elite to take over the whole political business.

Since achieving independence, the word Merdeka is heard less often. In its place is another expression: kebebasan, or liberty. Though both expressions lexically have relatively the same meaning, the political connotations are quite different. The former refers to national independence and is treated as a revolutionary slogan. The later refers to more individual freedom and is supposed to have a liberal undertone.

In the late fifties Sukarno himself tended to see liberal democracy as a system not suitable for Indonesia because it supposedly allowed too much kebebasan. He believed that a revolution could not be carried out, let alone be completed, if everybody was preoccupied with their own individual freedom. The Indonesian parliament was dissolved and Sukarno's regime put the presidential system into force.

In the New Order, the word kebebasan is not liked by many people in positions of power. It is supposed to give preference to the individual at the expense of the society. It is regarded as too liberal, too western and has no basis in Indonesian culture.

In practice it is treated as an idea which opposes the traditional family principle (allegedly so prevalent in indigenous communities). It is assumed that a preoccupation with freedom would stop people becoming actively involved in projects of national development. The interests of nation and state should come first and every individual is expected to make their contribution.

However, at a certain point, the significance of individuals cannot be explained away. Human rights activists, for example, take serious steps to restore the basic rights of individuals.

The basic problem is still how to relate the individual to the society or the state. In many developing countries, politics and the economy are state controlled. A reaction to this situation is understandable if it attempts to restore proportion to the role and the right of state, on the one hand, and that of the society on the other.

A classic philosophical question emerges again. Is the state a delegation of society or the other way around? Furthermore, can individuals be treated as mere parts of society or as a counterpart of society? Can one speak of the autonomy of society without giving attention to the autonomy of individuals?

The acceptability and workings of an idea are very much dependent upon the social conditions in which the idea is produced and disseminated. It is now unbelievable to see how so many people in this country, and in many other countries too, gave their lives for the idea of freedom and independence.

At the same time, it is very difficult to understand how in the period after independence the idea of freedom and liberty suddenly become a nuisance and even caused disruptions between the individual and society and between society and the state.

It seems that if we go back to the original meaning and significance of autonomy there would be nothing to be scarred about. The difference between children and those who have come of age is that the latter are supposed to have their autonomy whereas the former do not. Autonomy is the ultimate goal of education, culture and, of course, politics. Good politics or good education is what creates and supports the process leading to autonomy.

People with autonomy can think and work even if they are faced with a situation that curbs freedom. Conversely, those without autonomy cannot think and work effectively even if they are provided with full-scale freedom. Autonomy is the basic goal of human development. However, time and time again, we are faced with the fact that this noble goal is not always realized and not always supported in the real praxis.

Why on earth is this the case? It is because it makes the business of ruling people more difficult. Those with autonomy are able to raise questions and support their stance while those without autonomy are more easily mobilized. There is less intellectual and political cost to it.

A nation can be happy and optimistic if the celebration of independence also implies a recognition of human autonomy and all its consequences in culture, education and politics. Independence makes the realization of autonomy possible but autonomy makes the freedom of society and citizens real.

If one keeps this idea in mind one is not easily frightened by labels such as liberal, western or otherwise. The colonial West has gone but the cultural West is always present. It is rather anachronic to still believe that ideas or values are bad because they originated in the West. Or, conversely, another set of values are good because they were produced in the East.

To be autonomous is something fundamentally human. It is a point where East and West do meet, both in peace or conflict from time immemorial.

The writer is a sociologist and a researcher based in Jakarta.

Window A: A free country or an independent state is one which possesses autonomy. A free individual or an independent citizen has his or her autonomy

Window B: A nation can be happy and optimistic if the celebration of independence also implies a recognition of human autonomy and all its consequences in culture, education and politics