Loyalty to nation: Personal or political?

Loyalty to nation: Personal or political?

The nation celebrates its 51st anniversary of independence
tomorrow. Sociologist Ignas Kleden probes what
constitutes commitment and loyalty to a nation.

JAKARTA (JP): The term nation is more easily definable by
feeling than by reason. Sociology and political science have yet
to grapple with its true nature: a group of people, a community,
desire, imagination, will, fate, belief, or what?

Strangely enough, there are only a few theorists who preoccupy
themselves with the question of nation. Ben Anderson from Cornell
University once put it very trenchantly that the question of
nation produces only a few great masters, while a many great
masters do not give special attention to it. Our theoretical
knowledge about what nation constitutes is quite underdeveloped.
There exists a philosophical poverty.

On the other hand, the phenomenon of nation is close to
feeling and sentiment. People are sent to jail on behalf of a
nation, just like people go to war, fight, suffer and even die
for their nation. In fact the idea of nation still has a strong
political appeal with an amazingly powerful fascination, just as
it can elicit political anathema with equally calamitous
condemnation. Those who are proclaimed to be the heroes of a
nation dwell in a space between heaven and earth, whereas those
who are regarded and treated as its traitors are sent to a
black hole, an underworld between earth and hell.

Sociologically speaking, the concept of nation is much more
abstract than other conceptions, such as state, country, or
government. It is abstract because we do not know exactly what
makes up its constituents. A country has its people, a state its
citizens, a government its subjects, but a nation? What is it
made of?

It is also more abstract with regard to the empirical criteria
in terms of which it can be figured out. A country can be
recognized from its customs, a state from its territory, a
government from its institutions, but a nation?

Nation becomes abstract because it has very few objective
elements in it. Ben Anderson defines it as imagined community, a
community which exists only because, when, and as long as we
imagine it existing. Sukarno, Indonesia's first president, used
to quote Ernest Renan from France and Otto Bauer from Germany.
According to the former, a nation concurs in the will to unity
out of a common history. According to the latter, a nation is
made of common behavior and common character which are shaped by
a common lot.

To most of the few theorists about nation, its nature belongs
to the realm of subjectivity. It could be said to spring from
imagination, fantasy, desire, belief, projection, or mental
disposition if we look at it idealistically. It originates in
will, hope, determination, commitment and dedication if we look
at it otherwise.

The above discussion might sound highly theoretical, but it
has nevertheless a very concrete implication. The crucial
question is: If nation is basically an abstract notion, why is
we are sometimes so sure in making judgments about loyalty or
disloyalty to a nation? Can we make use of objective criteria, if
the nature of nation belongs in the realm of subjectivity?

If we keep in mind that the phenomenon of nation is closer to
feeling and sentiment than to reason and mind, it could be
assumed that many of our judgments regarding nation rest rather
on feeling and sentiment than on reasonable arguments and
arguable reasons. Besides that, our thinking is fairly
susceptible to ideological distortion: If you cannot do what you
believe, you surely believe what you do. At this juncture there
is just a fine line which demarcates right-or-wrong from
like-and-dislike.

From our modern history we can cite a great number of examples
which can demonstrate that it is not easy to judge whether or not
a person is loyal or disloyal to his or her nation.

Was Mohammad Hatta, the former vice president, being disloyal
when he decided to withdraw from office in 1956? Was Mochtar
Lubis loyal or disloyal to his nation when he stood up against
the authoritarian style of Sukarno and later fought against the
alleged corruption within the state-owned Pertamina oil company?
Were the Indonesian students in 1966 loyal or disloyal to their
nation when they marched to bring an end to the Old Order?

From world history we can cite no fewer examples. Willy Brandt
once left Germany for Norway in order to fight Hitler from
abroad. Was he loyal or disloyal to his nation? Socrates taught
the young men of Athens to think and to argue critically. Was he
a loyalist or a betrayer of his nation?

Loyalty to one's nation seems to be more personal than
political. It has to do with the very intimate relationship
between one's spiritual condition and what one envisages as one's
nation. Of course the commitment to one's nation, in order to be
workable, should be made plausible and acceptable within the
territory of a state, the customs of a country and the
institutions of the government.

However, there are several layers of commitment and loyalty
which are better differentiated than not. To say that the
commitment to the nation is all is too much. But to say that
loyalty to the nation is identical with submission to the state,
a bond to the country and obedience to the government is
extraordinarily too little.

The writer is a sociologist now working with the SPES Research
Foundation, Jakarta.