Observers question the concept of new nationalism
Observers question the concept of new nationalism
SURABAYA (JP): Indonesian nationalism, which prevents people
from questioning the established concepts of the state and
political realities is a sham, controversial scholar Abdurrahman
Wahid believes.
The chairman of Indonesia's largest Moslem organization
Nahdlatul Ulama said in a discussion on a new book on nationalism
by Minister of Transmigration Siswono Yudohusodo that the term
should mean "a spirit of humanism, and of taking sides when it
comes to the question of accountability (of the state
administration)".
Abdurrahman criticized the current attitude which defines
nationalism in Indonesia as accountability toward the
administrators of the state.
The restrictive concept then gives birth to a political stance
which is elitist in nature, and which compels people to express
their loyalty to the nation only through formal political
channels such as the political parties and the ruling Golkar or
the Armed Forces.
"Everything is then decided by the state," he said. "A
nationalism which sees (political) procedure as the substance is
a sham."
Abdurrahman, who also chairs Forum Demokrasi, a loose group of
critics of the government, said that such formal nationalism
usually does not tolerate people who make waves. When a mass
organization tries to be independent, the state usually
intervenes on the pretext that the group's stance was less than
nationalistic.
"We are not allowed to question the (existing) concepts of the
state and the political realities at all," he said.
The discussion was organized by the Surabaya Forum Foundation
in cooperation with Airlangga University. It also featured legal
expert J.E. Sahetapy, political observer Priyatmoko, and poet
Emha Ainun Nadjib.
Siswono, a former student activist and nationalist figure,
launched his third book earlier this month entitled Semangat Baru
Nasionalisme Indonesia (The New Spirit of Indonesian
Nationalism). He concluded that Indonesia must preserve, at all
costs, national unity, though without neglecting ugly social
realities.
Siswono, known for his habit of lashing out at social ills,
wrote against the erosion of "the noble values of humanity". "We
have been finding how hypocrisy abounds...how (there are)
ulterior motives in the good relations between the power holders
and the business leaders".
"Generous corruptors are widely praised, and people forget to
ask where their money comes from," he wrote. "The values in life
have shifted and created chaotic new yardsticks. (The word)
intelligence takes (a new) meaning of being skilled at deceiving
people, while honesty now means stupidity".
Despite his criticism, Abdurrahman Wahid agreed with the other
speakers that the book reflected "the conscience of a high-
ranking official squashed between power and his concern about the
future of the nation".
Sahetapy, however, said that the "new nationalism" should be
tested against social realities such as corruption, injustices,
and various forms of manipulation.
"Whether a person can be called a nationalist depends on his
stance on democracy and legal enforcement," said the professor of
law at Airlangga University. "It should be clear whether he sides
with the people or with officialdom".
He criticized Siswono's book as unrealistic. The term "new
nationalism" used by Siswono does not touch on concrete matters
such as democracy, or the way government officials position
themselves as the "patrons" of political development.
"Nationalism is actually a freedom of the conscience and a
responsibility of those in power," he said. (15/swe)