Is Indonesia's fear of communism still relevant?

Is Indonesia's fear of communism still relevant?

JAKARTA (JP): Today, for the 30th year, Indonesians are
marking Pancasila Commemorative Day, the victory of Pancasila
over communism.

The triumph followed the Sept. 30, 1965, bloody coup attempt
blamed on the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI). Since then, the
country has been gripped by a phobia about communism although the
PKI was outlawed that same year.

As always, the commemoration, a solemn one, brings back
memories too painful for many to want to recall. But for those
born after 1965, the commemoration is something they cannot
connect with.

This may make it difficult for the younger segment of this
society to understand why those involved in the crushing of the
PKI, the Armed Forces in particular, continue to adhere to their
vow to not let this bleak part in the nation's history repeat
itself. Such vows are understandable given the existing phobia
that the communists may regain power here.

Early this month Armed Forces Chief Gen. Feisal Tanjung
advised all regional military commanders to increase their
alertness against what he calls increasing communist and leftist
activities in Indonesia.

"There are signs indicating an increase in their activities,"
Feisal was quoted by Antara as saying in Bandung on Sept. 7.

One indication, according to the authorities, are the efforts
by former party members to disconnect themselves from their
involvement in the PKI through their memoirs. The government has
banned such memoirs, including those of Oei Tjoe Tat, one of the
cabinet members under Sukarno rounded up by the military when
Sukarno's government was dissolved in 1966. Oei was tried and
convicted by a court of law for playing a role in the abortive
coup. He was released in December 1977.

Maj. Gen. Syarwan Hamid, assistant to ABRI's (Armed Forces)
chief for socio-political affairs, says a ban is inevitable if
the memoirs contain misleading and potentially perverting
information.

"They can mislead the future generations," Syarwan was quoted
as saying by Gatra magazine.

Syarwan also stressed that the elimination of the "ET" (eks
tapol -- former political prisoner) stamp on the ID cards of
people convicted of political offenses should not be interpreted
as an indication "that we have forgiven them for what they did".

"The thing is, we simply believe the direct danger (of
communism) may have somewhat diminished," Syarwan argued.

The question remains as to how long it takes to forget and to
get around to burying our hatchets. No answer to this question is
apparent given the adage that history tends to repeat itself.

The Jakarta Post interviewed a number of people on the issue.
The following are their comments.

Taufiq Ismail, prominent poet and scholar:

"I truly believe that communism still exists in the country
although it comes in different forms. I call it neo-communism,"
Taufiq said.

The new-style communism, he explained, looms as a potential
threat to the Pancasila state ideology and therefore to the
country.

The almost 30 years since the l965 abortive communist coup
attempt have provided enough time for former members of the
banned Indonesian Communist Party and their followers to re-
establish their power. But due to changing times, the techniques
and methods they use have changed, to appear more "legal",
constitutional and peaceful, Taufiq maintained.

Taufiq said that communist sympathizers will no longer build
power from the bottom, through workers and farmers. Instead they
will build their base from the top through the bureaucracy, the
technocracy and capitalism by supporting the new-feudalism which
has stretched the gap between the rich and the poor.

The neo-communists base their activities on "globalization,
nationalism and Marxism", which are more realistic in this age,
he argued. They infiltrate the country through more sophisticated
areas such as culture, religion and the sociopolitical system,
Taufiq said.

To counter this new communism, a genuine democratic system
must be implemented. "The present government must be clean,
strong and honest," insisted the poet.

He warned that as long as there is still economic and legal
injustice, communism will have the potential to regain power.

Corruption, collusion and other social ills are potential
holes the communists can infiltrate, Taufiq added.

Asked how dangerous the communist threat is in Indonesia,
Taufiq said that it should be viewed from the degree of
comparison -- the most dangerous, dangerous, slightly dangerous
-- in portraying the current situation.

"I say at present the communist threat has reached the
dangerous level. Therefore we should be watchful."

Taufiq cited the trend in the local literary communities as an
example.

"There is a strong indication that many literary figures
formerly linked with the communist party are trying to clean
their bleak history," he stated.

In order to counter these attempts, Taufiq and senior
journalist D.S. Moelyanto published a book, Prahara Kebudayaan
(Cultural Calamity). The book discusses the political rivalries
between Indonesia's pro and anti-communist intellectuals during
the l959 to l965 period of Guided Democracy under President
Sukarno.

The book compiles raw documents on the political differences
between the pro-communist literary group under LEKRA (People's
Cultural Institute) and the anti-communist individuals associated
with the concept of Manikebu (Cultural Manifesto). Both Taufiq
and Moelyanto belonged to the Manikebu camp.

Prominent LEKRA members included Pramoedya Ananta Toer, Joebar
Ajoeb and Bakri Siregar. Sitor Situmorang was chairman of Lembaga
Kebudayaan Nasional (the National Cultural Agency/LKN), a very
close partner of LEKRA.

Manikebu adherents included Wiratmo Sukito, H.B. Jassin,
Goenawan Mohamad and N. Bokor Hutsuhut.

The two camps had their own cultural concepts. The left-wing
LEKRA believed in "humanism-realism or realism-socialism", while
the manifestants backed "humanism-universalism".

Taufiq says that he and Moelyanto wrote the book because they
were concerned about the development of politics in Indonesia.

"We found that some LEKRA members are trying to clean their
names by saying that the organization did not support socialism.
Secondly, we fear that Marxism-socialism could take root again. I
often meet young people who eagerly discuss Marxism and
socialism," Taufiq said.

One attempt at name clearing was made by Magsaysay Award
winner Pramoedya who said that he was only pupuk bawang, a low-
ranking official in LEKRA and LESTRA (the literary section of
LEKRA), Taufiq said.

"How could he have been a pupuk bawang? Many documents show
that he was vice-chairman of LEKRA and chairman of LESTRA,"
Taufiq argued.

He said his book is aimed at straightening out history since
there have been strong attempts by a certain group of people to
deny that socialistic realism is related to communism.

"If that is true, then (former) LEKRA members have a proper
justification to claim that the organization had no link with the
communists, which is really not true," Taufiq insisted.

"I'm only straightening out the facts. I don't like lies," he
added.

While some critics praise the book as "very balanced", others
say it has opened up old wounds and that the authors are "seeking
revenge".

"It is too long past to take any revenge. I am saying that
Moelyanto and I considered it our obligation to reveal the
truth."

He hopes the cultural calamity of the 1060s will never occur
again.

"At present, almost half of our entire population are people
born after l965, who have no experience whatsoever with either
the PKI or communism. We should remain on the alert and must not
belittle the danger of communism."

"The theory of Marxism-socialism is often a fascinating
subject for people to study. Many young students are found
reading such books, although the works are banned here," Taufiq
said.

He recalled a day when still a lecturer at the Bogor Institute
of Agriculture.

"I often met other scholars who seemed to master all the
theory. At that time, scholars and students in particular, who
did not read the theory were considered out of fashion," Taufiq
said.

"Later I discovered that when the theory was applied in real
life, it became a furious ideology. Therefore, we should remind
our younger generation about the danger of communism," he
concluded.

Abdul Hakim Garuda Nusantara, executive director of the
Institute of Policy Research and Advocacy: The statement that
people should be cautious about the latent danger of communism is
not relevant at all.

Just look at developments in the world: the Soviet Union has
collapsed, the Cold War is over and socialism has tumbled. East
European countries are moving toward capitalism and democracy
while China and Vietnam are moving toward market economies.

Now, let's look inside our country, what is our problem? It is
not communism. We have problems relating to poverty, hunger and
fear. The gap between the rich and the poor is widening due to
the economic development which is not in accordance with social
justice. Workers are exploited. There is great fear because of
the deteriorating environment. There is also fear because of
political repression.

Communism is out-of-date. It is not selling. People do not
believe that communism can be an alternative system.

Why do the authorities tell people to be on the alert against
the danger of communism? I think this is part of the propagation
of the authorities to scare people because the authorities are
experiencing a crisis of legitimation. The authorities are
implementing repressive policies and they need to legitimize the
implementation of such policies.

The government has banned some books which are said to bear
communist elements. But which parts of the books have the
elements of communism? There has never been an explanation about
this.

Marzuki Darusman, member of the National Commission for Human
Rights:

People of today prefer to see communism from a humanitarian
point of view, while the government is locked in its ideological
perspective. Thus, there is a difference in perception.

It's true that communism is not yet finished. In East Europe
there is now Neo-Communism, in Germany there are Neo-Nazis. Thus,
practically and academically, communism may come back.

Yet in Indonesia the situation is different. Communism was
abandoned 30 years ago, too long a period for a comeback.
Moreover, the winning issues of the communists, such as the gap
between the haves and haves-not and injustice, are being
addressed by the government and other political parties.

Theoretically, communism is likely to come back. We have to be
cautious, but there's no need to so exaggerate that people become
paranoid. It is understandable why ABRI is overcautious because
the (defunct) Indonesian Communists Party would view ABRI as
their only obstacle.

ABRI's allegation that public demand for the release of all
political prisoners was masterminded by Indonesian Communist
Party (PKI) is more a stigmatization, scapegoatism. This is an
obsolete technique of politics. This was often exercised in the
past in many places in the world, including Eastern Europe and
our country, when the term "counter-revolutionary" was used (by
the communists).

This technique is effective in times of crisis, but not under
normal conditions. We are now in a normal condition, where people
demand more openness.

Communication between civilians and ABRI is not based on an
intellectual framework. ABRI focuses on empirical things and does
not understand "inner" things. In comparison, if someone is only
equipped with a hammer, all things are seen as nails. More open
dialog between ABRI, intellectuals and politicians is then called
for to clear away the impression that the only thing ABRI does is
disrupt munas (political gatherings).

Today, some top ABRI officers are aware of this. But it's not
enough. This awareness must permanently stay with ABRI as an
institution so that it doesn't change with the change in
leadership.

Thus, ABRI needs to renew its process of education to attune
it to new political discourse. They shouldn't only study such
things as patriotism, but also the understanding of the essence
of politics.

Hilmar Farid, a researcher of the Sosial, Politik dan Ekonomi
Studi research institute:

What we need today is actual clarity and a complete
explanation, not wariness. There must be an explanation on what
the so-called latent danger is and why it is very dangerous.
Everything is kind of mixed up today due to this lack of clarity.
A movement in Purwokerto, Central Java, which tried to establish
an Islamic state was said to be masterminded by those of the
extreme left. How could that happen?

Books on the Sept. 30, 1965 ordeal exist, but to many the
incident somehow remains unclear and closed. The state secretary
in 1994 published a book, entitled September 30th Movement,
Indonesian Communist Party's rebellion, background, action and
its extermination, aimed at clarifying the incident. But the book
contains a lot of factual mistakes. For example, it is said that
Asmu (a PKI member) is a Batak man while in fact he is Javanese.

Therefore, we should make it clear what we want to emphasize
when we talk about the G30S: As a tragedy or to educate people
that communism is still dangerous? If it is the tragedy that we
want to focus on, it's OK. But if it is for education, it's not
too effective. People are forced to believe (in the danger of
communism), but some just cannot believe it. Some people may not
understand why it is dangerous, and if they're asked to be on the
alert, they don't know against what. It is only said that
communism is still alive. Well, if that refers to those who were
involved in the outlawed PKI, yes, some of them are still alive.
But physically they are not capable of doing anything. Some of
them are as old as 90 now.

If we wish to talk about the tragedy of it, everyone who was
involved or saw with their own eyes what happened at the time
should tell the truth. For me, the incident is not yet clear. If
it is true that the PKI was so powerful at that time, why should
they have attempted a coup? If it is true that PKI's people had
penetrated the ruling government at the time, isn't it illogical
that they would overthrow their own people?

I don't know why the Armed Forces is still raising the issue
of communism nowadays. It is also my question why they keep doing
so.

Juwono Sudarsono, lecturer of politics at the University of
Indonesia, Deputy Governor of the National Resilience Body,

There is now some kind of backlash in society. There's
antiestablishment, anti-ABRI and antigovernment. It reflects
boredom in society. There is some sympathy towards what is
considered government enemies, including, unfortunately, Marxism
and communism. (The sympathy is from) youngsters who did not
experience the crisis in the transitory period of 1965 to 1969.

This is an interesting and understandable phenomenon. Thus,
(General) Feisal (Tanjung) views it as sympathy towards the PKI.
As a matter of fact, it is not. What is born is actually the
instinct of antiestablishment, anti-ABRI, antigovernment, which
is expressed in the form of sympathy for the PKI.

This (perception) is understandable, seeing that today's
senior officers, from brigadier generals up, handled the case 25
to 30 years ago as lieutenants and captains. Thus, it is
imprinted in their minds.

I think a discussion is necessary between ABRI senior officers
and today's youngsters because both are children of two different
perceptions, and as such their differences are understandable. On
one side are ABRI senior officers who were involved in dealing
with communists, risking their lives in the act. The youngsters
born after 1965 were raised in the New Order era and had their
personalities molded in an atmosphere of openness. The
youngsters, therefore, have this inborn habit of questioning
everything, including the current situation. Thus everything in
conflict with the government wins their sympathy.

Meanwhile, ABRI is not using the communist issue as an excuse
for its behavior. They are honestly worried that youngsters will
be devoured by an ideology whose danger they don't understand.
The youngsters by default have sympathy for the communists just
because they are fed up with what they see as avarice and
hypocrisy existing in society and in the government. It is
regrettable. But I can understand it. The danger comes when they
are exploited by people who want to use them as weapons.

The PKI will benefit from the mistakes of the party which beat
them in the past. The danger is not the PKI as such, but our
mistakes and recklessness. We don't like the discrepancies and
mistakes of today, which could explain the revival of such
movements as the PKI.

The ex-political prisoners experienced being detained for more
than 20 years. From the humanitarian point of view, we must
sympathize with them. It's time for them to be released. From
another humanitarian point of view, it is possible that they may
want revenge after 15 years of imprisonment. Thus there are two
different humanitarian points of view. (als/jsk/raw/sim)