Marsillam fights ghost from Indonesia's past

Marsillam fights ghost from Indonesia's past

Pandangan Negara Integralistik
Marsillam Simandjuntak
Publisher: PT Pustaka Utama Grafiti, 1994
284 pages

JAKARTA (JP): Has anyone noticed that hidden beneath the
thick, almost invisible smog of political tension, a ghost from
the country's past has been brought back from obscurity to haunt
the democratization process?

In his new book, Marsillam Simanjuntak, an outspoken activist
or eloquent political observer, lashes out against this old ghost
identified in his book's title "The Integral State Concept"
(Pandangan Negara Integralistik).

It is curious that the integral idea, a concept not found in
the written text of the constitution, has been officially brought
back from obscurity by the New Order government as the basis for
interpreting the 1945 Constitution (UUD'45) and the Pancasila
state ideology.

This disturbs the author because, as he cleverly shows in his
meticulously researched book, the integral concept became
obsolete immediately after it was brought up on the eventful
night of May 31, 1945. That night, some of Indonesia's founding
fathers gathered to discuss what principle the country should
adopt for its constitution and the foundation of its law.

This book, currently available only in Bahasa Indonesia, must
be read by those concerned with the democratization process. The
book is especially enlightening because it reflects on the long
roots of various non-democratic ideas which are often presented
as, like Lee Kuan Yew or Li Peng say, the "Asian way".

Non-democratic

The idea of the integral state was introduced by Prof. Supomo,
one of Indonesia's founding fathers, who, based on his peculiar
understanding of Hegel's philosophy, believed it was consistent
with "the Eastern way of thinking" and what he called "the family
principle, unity and cohesion".

This idea can be summarized as a mostly normative non-
democratic concept which is modeled on, as Supomo himself said,
Third Reich Germany and the ultra nationalistic Japanese
government during World War II (p.88).

Supomo's speech, which was recorded by Muhammad Yamin in his
Naskah Persiapan UUD'45, summarized the concept as: "...the State
as an integral combination of the entire society, of all people
and all classes, in which its members relate to one another as an
organic unity...the State does not favor a particular group or
class, does not view the individual's interests as essential but
it guarantees the nation's livelihood as a whole in a unity which
cannot be separated." (p.85)

Marsillam attacks this idea as it ignores the basic rights of
citizens, is too vague and is virtually inconceivable in the
context of a modern state's administrative law.

Indeed, other than on one night, Supomo never elaborated on
the controversial concept.

The professor, as described in the book, was consistently
vague and controversial during his presentation. At one point, he
even argued that "it is not an essential matter under the
integral concept whether the country should be governed under a
republic or a monarchy".

Instead, Supomo said "what is vital is that the head of state
must have a character resembling that of a leader and the entire
people" and "whether the head of state is a King...a
President...or a Fuhrer, it is not essential."

In addition, Supomo, a Dutch trained lawyer and member of the
Javanese gentry who worked in the civil service under the Dutch
and Japanese occupation, also adamantly opposed all ideas that he
thought "liberal" and "individualistic" which were proposed, for
example, by the other founding father Muhammad Hatta who brought
up the issue of human rights.

It is to Marsillam's credit that he chronologically presents
how various "democratic" ideas finally prevailed in the 1945
Constitution as illustrated in Article 28, which "guarantees the
right to assembly and freedom of opinion which is managed by the
law".

Non-integral

Marsillam concludes that the 1945 Constitution is essentially
non-integral because many elements of Supomo's original idea were
later dismantled in the text of the constitution. (p.112)

In fact, in a very important footnote on p.237, Marsillam
proves that even Supomo, in a book published in 1948, repudiated
his 1945 insistence on the concept.

The author writes: "This particular acknowledgment of Supomo
should end the debate in the interpretation of article 28 in
UUD'45, which is clearly about the basic rights of man. Thus, it
is also the end of the integral concept."

To Marsillam's dismay, this concept has been brought back from
virtual obscurity by the New Order government for political
purposes.

He believes that the idea was resurrected to restrict any new
interpretation of Pancasila and the Preamble of the 1945
Constitution, particularly pertaining to citizen's rights.

He points out, for example, that in a text book published by
the government in 1984, the integral state was referred to as the
method to interpret the 1945 Constitution, particularly on human
rights issues.

Marsillam indicates that this is a serious problem. He reminds
the reader that Pancasila had the capability to become the
foundation of the UUDS (Provisional Law) 1950, a very liberal
blue print of a constitution which explicitly guaranteed human
rights and the formation of a parliamentary government.

Marsillam's concluding message, which is difficult to argue
against, blasts maneuvers designed to bring back the integral
idea: "...all sorts of integral concepts should be abandoned and
no longer applied because they will violate the people's
sovereignty.."

Despite his apparent strong disagreement with Supomo, one of
the nation's heroes, Marsillam carefully phrases his work and
never attempts to discredit the professor by launching personal
attacks.

In short, the book is not a character assassination of Prof.
Supomo.

The book's only weakness, I believe, is the long and rather
over worked analysis of Hegel's political philosophy which does
not seem to posses any urgent relevance to the rest of the work.

One problem also remains. If the UUD '45 is a non-integral
constitution, can we safely regard it as a "democratic"
constitution?

Marsillam does not rule out that the UUD '45 contains many of
Sukarno's anti liberal ideas which, if seen through a particular
historical and political light, are essentially just another form
of the integral concept.

In light of the recent press bans and the executive's pressure
on the Supreme Court about the latter's unexpected ruling, all
Indonesians should remember this truly fearsome ghost.

-- Hidayat Jati