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.