PKI: Opening a new chapter, without closing book

PKI: Opening a new chapter, without closing book

Revoking the ban on communism is urgent to turn a new page in
the country's traumatic history, writes political analyst
Kusnanto Anggoro, senior researcher at the Centre for Strategic
and International Studies, and lecturer in the postgraduate
studies program at the University of Indonesia.

JAKARTA (JP): President Abdurrahman Wahid has again put
himself at the center stage of controversy. His call to revoke
People's Consultative Assembly Decree No. 25/1966, on the banning
of Marxism-Leninism, has provoked discussion.

Responses have ranged from fear that revoking the decree would
promote atheism, to the potential rebirth of a communist party.
Other criticism is politically motivated, accusing the President
of exceeding his authority. Sentiments against communism and
power struggles appear to be in the background of the
controversy.

It signifies many things. First, it is likely that our
understanding of Marxism-Leninism has been limited to what best
can be called fetishism in an irrational devotion to views that
have been spoon-fed to us.

The New Order tradition of rejecting parties and ideologies
has become so embedded in society that people make no distinction
between ideology and politics.

Second, many consider it a one-dimensional issue of
restricting communism. It is a collective memory of winning, and
perhaps, fear of revenge.

The President, given his background and political status,
appears to be basing his opinion on more comprehensive and
multidimensional aspects, politically driven or otherwise.

The battleground is therefore asymmetrical, on different
wavelengths, of opposing mind-sets. It is a game of chicken.

Indeed, the potential for a communist rebirth remains remote.
The significance of communism can never be measured by the number
of Communists.

Lenin's slogan was "fewer but better"; a long-established
slogan is "the party grows strong through purging itself".

The theory of communism is of the chosen few who are
organized, disciplined, dedicated and equipped with superior
intelligence and understanding of the laws of history -- that is
a power struggle, and, if necessary violent conflict.

Even acute observers, while noting the numerical weakness of
the Communists, realize how they are able to rally into their
service multitudes who are completely unaware that they are
serving the communist cause.

In the virtual age, one can easily find the teachings of Marx,
Lenin, Gramsci and Togliatti on websites.

Nevertheless, an understanding of Marxism-Leninism, the crux
of the above decree, cannot be easily summed up in political
violence and terror.

Vladimir Lenin was no Eduard Bernstein, who favored democratic
changes. Yet, communism is not beyond economic, political and
cultural analyses.

The Russian Communists, like their Chinese counterparts,
pursued violence and terror not because of their ideological
allegiance to Marx, but due to social conditions in their own
country -- an agrarian society, a long tradition of
authoritarianism and the balance of power between the rival
Bolsheviks and Mensheviks.

Communism immediately conjures up images of violence, terror
and the work of intelligence services, all of which releases
loathing and anger. Stalin's Gulag was as bad as Hitler's
Holocaust. Anticommunist Augusto Pinochet used DINA to suppress
his political opponents, as communist Lavrenty Beria did with the
KGB.

By calling for revoking the decree, the President may be
trying to break the chains of fetishism. It will serve to
desacralize state apparatuses as tools of political repression.

Indonesia needs a rational, not Orwellian, anticommunism. It
should be an ideology of antipoverty, against disparity and
injustice.

Perhaps Abdurrahman may also be unlocking the secrecy of evil
in society. It also is an issue of promoting human rights,
opening the way for national reconciliation, uncovering the
cemetery of truth. One might even find the issue of the mind, the
conscience, and the moral of our epoch in his statement:
"democracy makes no distinction between communist and
noncommunist".

In developing a discourse on truth and reconciliation, the
President also appears to believe that acknowledgement of past
wrongdoing is even more necessary.

For sure, it is not without risks. The political stakes
involved in settling accounts with the past are extraordinarily
high.

A fully satisfactory outcome can hardly be expected. Social
tensions brought about by the legacy of human rights violations
could linger on for a long time, in civil-military relations, in
state-society relations and in the dynamics of multiparty
systems.

Political meddling would be unavoidable. More importantly, if
the purpose is to appease victims of the events of 1965 referred
to as Gestapu, Indonesia should establish an ad hoc tribunal
and/or commission of inquiry.

While maximizing gain may be a luxury, the strategy could well
be a matter of minimizing risk.

Indonesia is now in a catch-22 situation. There is a growing
awareness of the fabrication of history for a plethora of self-
serving reasons.

Yet, the overwhelming ignorance of the truth has fanned fears
about a new point of concern. A refined understanding of the past
is critical in moving our fetishism from the reductionist view --
that the biggest threat to our national unity is Marxism-Leninism
-- to comprehension of social disparity, relative deprivation and
political opportunism.

Granted, nothing will be sufficient without economic recovery,
institutionalization of democratic practices and the supremacy of
law. Some may argue there is little sense in opening the
Pandora's box of a communist revival to divide the country when
it faces matters that are much more pressing. Still, constructing
the future requires liberating the past. We may have to open a
new chapter without closing the book.