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)