Linking social justice with national unity

Linking social justice with national unity

Each year the nation celebrates the anniversary of the pledge
made by youth activists on Oct. 28, 1928. J. Soedjati Djiwandono
reflects on the significance of the pledge in today's society.

JAKARTA (JP): The Youth Pledge commemoration this week may be
of special significance in today's society. It should serve as a
strong reminder of the importance of national unity because never
before has national unity been so seriously challenged as it is
now. This is not to suggest that the country is facing
disintegration, but the alternatives it faces may not necessarily
be better.

In the first place, the nationhood of Indonesia should never
be perceived as a racial, ethnic, cultural, religious,
linguistic, or anything other than a political concept.
Independent Indonesia was born as a nation state because, long
before independence, the concept of Indonesia as a nation had
been consciously developed.

This new concept was not forged on the basis of racial,
ethnic, cultural, religious, or linguistic backgrounds. Hundreds
of "national" groups were united into a new nation -- the
Indonesian nation -- by their common political aspiration to
achieve one independent nation which would be free from (Dutch)
colonialism and which would rise above racial, ethnic, cultural,
religious or linguistic affinities.

The Youth Pledge of Oct. 28 1928 was the manifestation of that
common determination. Any attempt to impose on our nation any
particular ethnic, racial, or religious values under the
assumption that such values are the "nation's cultural values" or
part of the "Indonesian identity" would be contrary to our ideal
of national unity.

However, national unity should never be taken for granted. We
have to continue working for it and making serious efforts to
ensure that justice prevails. We have to guarantee that no social
group, even a large majority, regardless of whether its basis is
religious, ethnic, racial, cultural, or linguistic, should claim
political, economic or any other privileges. At the same time, no
group, regardless of its basis or how small it may be, should
feel discriminated against for any reason. Perception is often
more important than reality in such cases.

Those who attempt to resolve social injustices usually
emphasize the problem of poverty. Attempts to deal with poverty,
however, have been ad hoc. The problem of poverty should be
handled in a comprehensive manner, through the enactment of
appropriate legislation with an effective system of enforcement,
as befits a nation which claims to operate under the rule of law.
It is not enough to "appeal" to the rich to be generous toward
the poor. This may be a contradiction in terms.

Too much emphasis has been given to the question of poverty.
Social injustice has two dimensions. Dealing only with poverty,
without tackling the problems of the accumulation and
demonstration of wealth, does not solve the problem of the
widening gap between the rich and the poor. Such a gap could
limited, for example, by the adoption of an appropriate tax
system and anti-monopoly laws.

It is not poverty itself, but the gap between the rich and the
poor that is most likely to threaten social stability and
national unity. Only prosperity based on justice can guarantee
peace and social stability. In any society there are bound to be
conflicts of interest among individuals and between different
groups. One way of solving such conflicts is through physical
force or violence. At an international level, states go to war.
This is a source of instability. The other way is by peaceful
means, namely through justice. At the state level, peaceful
solutions are achieved by mutually-agreed compromises.

Justice, of course, is an ideal and is never fully attainable.
In concrete terms, justice can be promoted by fighting injustice.
And while the idea of justice or injustice applies to all aspects
of life, it is in the socioeconomic field that injustices are
most readily seen and felt.

The promotion of social justice requires a structural or
societal change, from feudalism to democratic pluralism. Feudal
mentality makes people resigned to what they perceive and accept
to be part of their destiny. Their lives and positions in society
are seen as being part of the natural order of things -- whether
it is to be poor and to serve, or to be rich and to be served.

National unity can only be maintained through social justice.
Injustice applies not only to individuals, but also to groups in
society. Such injustices are often attributed, unnecessarily and
incorrectly, to differences in ethnic, racial, or religious
backgrounds. Those feeling disadvantaged, underprivileged, or
discriminated against, are likely to be averse to unity with the
privileged.

Whenever groups feel deprived of their proper rights and
proper place in society, or believe their aspirations are not
sufficiently accommodated in the existing political system, it
may be a sign that the system is not working properly or that the
state is not delivering the goods.

The writer is a member of the Board of Directors at the Centre
for Strategic and International Studies, Jakarta.