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)