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.