On sectarian policy

On sectarian policy

Minister of Defense and Security Eddy Sudradjat's recent
statement calling on various existing intellectual associations
to unite into a single "national" organization is apparently the
latest word in the current public debate over the future of the
so-called intellectual associations. Sudradjat said such an
alliance would certainly indicate stronger national cohesion and
unity.

For decades, intellectuals have played an important role in
shaping this country's politics. But it was not until four years
ago, following the formation of the Moslem Intellectuals
Association (ICMI), that their role has taken a new turn.
Initially set up by a handful of students from the Brawijaya
University in Malang, East Java, under the chairmanship of the
"strongman" State Minister of Research and Technology B.J.
Habibie, ICMI has stormed its way into Indonesian politics and
eventually, with the support of President Soeharto, became quite
influential.

But the formation and existence of ICMI has upset many people
here. For one thing, they believe that it is a setback to our
national unity, since ICMI, bearing the label "Moslem" in its
very name, could be considered nothing but "sectarian" -- a far
cry from our sacred 1928 pledge (17 years before independence)
that we will be one nation, with one country and one national
language.

Thus it is understandable if the Armed Forces (ABRI), which
claims to be the guardian of our national unity, is the one which
is the most unhappy with ICMI. But with the strong, though tacit,
support of President Soeharto, who apparently needs a new
constituency and so has played his Moslem card, nobody was bold
enough to oppose ICMI's conception.

Along its political journey, however, it could soon be seen
that ICMI is divided into two main factions: the bureaucrats and
the political activists. The latter group reportedly became
disenchanted and upset after it turned out that it was the
bureaucrat faction which gained the upper hand, after it acquired
several ministerial seats in the cabinet, as well as other
influential positions. The activists had to be content with
remaining in the back seat.

On the other hand, apparently alarmed by the formation of
ICMI, other "sectarian" intellectual groups have sprung up or re-
emerged, notably PIKI (Christian), ISKA (Catholic) and FCHI
(Hindu). Another newcomer is the Association of Indonesian
Nationalist Intellectuals (ICKI), which reportedly should have
been established last week, but due to certain technical reasons
has delayed its emergence.

The appearance of diverse sectarian groups -- coupled with
indications that, indeed, sectarian and "primordial" (extremely
biased) ways of thinking and sentiments are rapidly on the rise
as seen in developments over the last several years -- have
alarmed many people who see the new phenomenon as a threat to our
national unity.

Minister Sudradjat's call on the various associations to merge
into an Association of Indonesian Intellectuals (ICI), then,
could be seen as an effort to defuse the "bomb." We are afraid,
though, that Sudradjat's call will meet deaf ears. For one thing,
ICMI's rapid ascendancy in Indonesian politics has already put
them in a lofty position and, according to the political maxim,
no one who has the upper hand will want to relinquish his power
voluntarily.

Besides, if ICMI has now become an effective political machine
(despite repeated denials from its board of executives), who
wants to loose such a formidable instrument? And even if ICI
could be established, ICMI would surely dominate it and
eventually that would create new conflicts.

The existence of various "sectarian" intellectual associations
is a consequence of our current political system. We cannot
escape it. Besides, the freedom to associate is guaranteed by the
Constitution.

What saddens us is the double standard that is apparently
being exercised by the government in the application of that
freedom. While intellectuals are seemingly relatively free to
form various organizations, other professional groups are barred
from doing the same -- workers and journalists, for example. But
then, perhaps, there is some truth after all in the old saying
that politics is nasty.