Reconciliation embraces politics, economics, culture

The following is an interview with Harry Tjan Silalahi, a student leader turned politician who was involved in the anti- communist campaign of the mid-1960s and later became a member of the House of Representatives and the Supreme Advisory Council before joining the Centre for Strategic and International Studies. On this occasion he speaks about various topics ranging from nation-building the challenges which Indonesia faces in the years ahead.

Q: There have been numerous calls for political reconciliation. How do you view this phenomenon?

A: We are a pluralistic society and hence tension always arises when we are attempting to establish harmony. Therefore, the issue of reconciliation and tolerance is always there, it is inherent in our nation-building efforts. And so, a national leader is required to be a statesman, not merely a politician. A statesman is capable of carrying out reconciliation continuously. On this 50th anniversary of our independence we have to be vigilant and we have to rethink and remind ourselves of the values imbedded in our Youth Pledge and our determination to build a nation.

Q: Pardons have been granted to some political detainees and yet it seems that the government still harbors some concerns about the possible resurgence of the communists.

A: There are some sections of the government that want to play safe. Authorities, especially those responsible for order and security, favor too great a safety margin. They don't want to take any risks. There is no harm in reaching a political reconciliation with communist detainees since they are now over 60 years old. Those who are under 60 years old were younger people who had heard about Marxist and Leninist ideology but were not activists. So there is no need to be afraid of them. If they employ analytical methods regarding social gaps, the inspiration comes not solely from Marxism and Leninism. It is true that Marxism and Leninism spear-headed analyses on social gaps at the beginning of this century, but the issue is not the concern only of Marxism and Leninism. Great religions -- Islam, Christianity, Buddhism -- profess the same concern and even Indonesian nationalism opposes abuses of power and social injustice. Therefore, it is most absurd to perceive those activists who fight for social justice, social equity, as seeds of communism. Thus, one should not seek to detain those who fight for justice but find out why there have been injustices.

Q: What has happened to Marxist and Leninist ideology?

A: As an ideology, I think, and especially as a party tool, it has been a failure which has been proven by the history of the communist party; due to its imperialistic and dogmatic characteristics. It is no longer of interest to those intellectuals with a sound mind. Of course, there will be a few fanatics, but those in their right mind will not accept it any more. With globalization, the world will be more open and there will be more international relations. Now human dignity and freedom is the first priority in the mind of the people, and hence all things dogmatic are being rejected.

Q: Could you give some examples?

A: This applies to great religions as well. As soon as they become overly dogmatic, refusing to accept a rational line of thinking, their influence will wane and they will be abandoned by intellectuals. Thus, Marxism and Leninism have lost their sex appeal. As an economic philosophy it has made a mistake in predicting the future. Not all of it is a mistake, since an ideology is a huge packet and parts of it may still be valid, but, essentially, Marxism and Leninism are out of date. Therefore, new thinking has emerged in Russia, or China, even recently in Cuba and Vietnam. They are people who are looking for a genuine answer in this globalization era. Thus, Marxism and Leninism are no longer that attractive. Why the fear?

Q: Or perhaps it is a fear of revenge?

A: No, I don't think so. Indonesian people are very ... Those officials who expressed it were too young then. I don't think it is the reason for the fear since those who fought Pemuda Rakyat and the CGMI (communist affiliated youth/student organization) are people of my age. They are retired by now and many of them have passed away.

Q: The decision to abolish the controversial "ET" (ex- political detainee) notation on the identity cards of former political detainees has just been made after 30 years. It took a long time, didn't it?

A: This is a bureaucratic issue. Once a thing enters the bureaucratic domain it takes a long time to abolish. People are just too lazy to make a change. The same applies to the special notation on the identity cards of Indonesians of Chinese descent. I have talked about it over and over again and people say, yes, you are right, but nothing happens.

Q: The nation-building issue has featured prominently in this 50th anniversary. Do you agree that it is an important issue?

A: I agree. Nation-building is something we cannot take for granted. Sometimes people want to approach this issue from the economic point of view. If hunger is no longer a problem, that is still inadequate because man has both physical and spiritual aspects. And hence, when we are talking about reconciliation, it should not only be political reconciliation but also economic, social and cultural. I think that is part of nation-building.

Q: But social and cultural things are less tangible and hence more difficult to identify than political ones.

A: The clemency granted to Soebandrio and others is related to technicalities, but the essence is that this nation is reflecting upon its 50th anniversary, to reconcile, to reduce social and political tension.

Q: Suppose Soebandrio had not been granted clemency. Would you have been disappointed?

A: Well, I wouldn't feel sad, but why not? What are the objections? But that would not be the end of the world. We should not seek refuge in past administrations and make comparisons. This is wrong. OK, there are shortcomings, but aren't there other things needed to be done too? Like learning to appreciate the participation of other cultural groups in Indonesia in an effort to set up the nation's culture. This is something we tend to overlook. Things like using the Indonesian language correctly. The language is being contaminated by local dialects, especially Javanese. This is a reflection of our disrespect toward minority cultures. This is disintegrative in character. We cannot take this for granted. The same applies to school textbooks, which use names like Aminah, Hassan -- nothing like Fernandes, Jose, Abilio or Tagor. Aren't they Indonesians too? This has all been taken for granted. Their inroads into the Indonesian culture should be appreciated. This anniversary has a very important momentum. We should not display physical achievement only but also spiritual and cultural achievement and make reconciliation in every sphere of life.

Q: If we may come back to cultural participation, are there other fields that need to be corrected?

A: Other ethnic groups should also be given the chance to become television news readers, for example. Not only beautiful boys and girls. This is to avoid a perception of "us" and "them".

Q: Is it not a question of the quality of the people, which does not come up to standard?

A: Look, if the quality is not up to standard we can always resort to training. Why can't we? Even dogs can be trained. The problem is that many people tend to opt for easier ways by recruiting friends or relatives. We know that those who come from the provinces may have some shortcomings, hence there is a need for a special training. We have to make an extra effort because the value of national unity is greater than the cost of training.

Q: We have been independent for 50 years but still some people find it difficult even to hold a gathering.

A: Well, yes but there are people who are free to talk about anything wherever they want to without a permit, like the dalang (shadow puppet masters). I mean, those with prejudice hit a snag sometimes but there are people who can talk freely ... I think it is OK.

Q: Don't you think that divisive forces like ethnicity and provincial fanaticism are registering themselves more strongly in this 50th year of independence?

A: There is some truth in that but, on the other hand, thanks to better communication at present, provincial borders are blurring and people move from one province to another. The disadvantage is that better-qualified people tend to concentrate in Java. But the advantage is that Jakarta has become a melting pot.

Q: Is disintegration a threat to Indonesia at this age of globalization?

A: There are three threats, I think. One is primordialism (reversion to immediate group identity), especially primary primordialism, which refers to those who claim that only their group is the most righteous, whether they are religious group or whatever. Secondary primordialism -- like Batak people assembling to stage a tortor dance, for example, or Javanese playing the gamelan together -- can still be tolerated.

The second threat is that of a centralized government system, as opposed to a democratic system. All decisions are in the hands of the central government ... no regional autonomy.

The third threat is the widening social gap. These are the three reflections for our next 50 years.

Q: How serious is the threat?

A: It could be very serious. I mean, if we let primary "primordial people" get their way, if we become too centralist, it could be disastrous... People will refuse to be contained in a straight jacket. And if we fail to implement social justice.

Q: Are you optimistic or pessimistic?

A: Well, in observing a social phenomenon we cannot use optimistic or pessimistic criteria. We have to use a criterium of "do we understand the threat?" and "do we want to sweat it out or not?" To alleviate the threat, there are people who want to do something. Then we (have to consider) how to synergize their efforts. There are forces opposing these efforts, but those who are pushing for improvements abound. For example, the state of legal affairs in Indonesia is discouraging, but out of the blue we suddenly have this legal decision by judge Benjamin Mangkudilaga (who decided in favor of the banned Tempo magazine). I mean we find this kind of person -- who believes that certain things cannot go on the way they are -- within the same group.

Q: How would you describe the character of this nation?

A: There is an abundant supply of people with goodwill.

Q: If we look at Sukarno and Soeharto, what good things in their administrations should be perpetuated?

A: In a more open society it is a more transparent leadership, more open and more democratic. The leader should be able to respond to the challenges of his or her era, to reduce malignancies like abuses of power. But an open and democratic leader in a pluralistic society like Indonesia can't usually do things speedily. Thus, a democratic leader is actually not an ideal leader. A democrat has to tolerate so many different opinions that the progress that can be made is often incremental, but with a minimum abuse of power. Hence, people opt for this kind of leader, although the progress made is not as quick as (under) authoritarian leaders. It would be wonderful to have an authoritarian leader who is really clean. But this simply does not exist, hence people go for a democratic leader. Of course, all this is theoretical but it applies everywhere -- in the United States, Russia and others.

Q: How would you compare the democratic climate in Indonesia with our neighboring countries, say Malaysia?

A: I think Malaysia has acquired more mature political institutions but it is unfair to make a comparisons with Malaysia, with only 16 million people.

Q: Back to the question of the disintegration that has occurred in a number of number of countries: What do you think about our country?

A: We are fortunate that we became a nation first before we won our independence. Hence, unless the country is governed in an exceedingly bad fashion there will be no disintegration. Our (situation) is different from Yugoslavia, whose nation was built on power. When the power perishes, the state disintegrates. The same goes for the Soviet Union. Take the Indonesian language as an example. It is really our choice -- not a government decree or any other authority's -- but the people's choice and everyone concedes. It is a brilliant choice. This is an asset of the nation. I agree with Sjadzali (former minister of religion) who said that Islam will become a leader in Southeast Asia. Southeast Asia means Indonesia. I believe in it and I have hopes for it. That's the reason why fundamentalism is not curbed by power here like those in Algier but a local remedy is sought to overcome it. This is a most exhilarating fact.

Q: Is it part of the nation's character?

A: That is one. The other one is that we were fortunate to have been endowed with really great leaders when this nation was founded. Leaders who had a clear vision of the nation of Indonesia. It is really a blessing. None of them were religious fanatics, fundamentalists. They were all intellectuals. This contributed immensely to the Youth Pledge, when they gathered to found this nation. There was no mention of religion as the base of the nation, for example, but One Nation, One Motherland and One Language. And they believed then that serious attention should be given to matters relating to education, local traditions and scouts. If they had pointed out religion at that time, things would have turned out differently.

Q: Will there be a leader with statesmanship stature after Soeharto?

A: After Soeharto we will have a president who must have more ears to listen, who is more collective and more democratic. Will he or she have a qualified staff to give him or her input or will the House of Representatives be strengthened to become a partner in development? Hopefully that is what will happen. It is more difficult to have a leader who is also a founding father, like Sukarno or Soeharto, because they have been the nation's leaders prior to their election as president. These are the founding fathers who went into leadership orbit because of a given situation.

Q: So, the future will not be the same?

A: No, it will be different.

Q: How do you assess the present government under Soeharto?

A: It has managed to literally seal 50 million mouths because of its successful family planning. Supposing Sukarno still reigned: by now we would already have 250 million people. Imagine how many dozens of times (the population of) Singapore it would be? Secondly, Soeharto's hard work has made Indonesia a self- sufficient country in food. Thirdly, Soeharto has led a low- profile international relations policy which has wiped out the suspicion of (Indonesia) being a security threat in the region and hence has been conducive to development. Fourth, Soeharto is the person who has introduced the importance of business into an agricultural society, especially the Javanese, because this is an investment for the future. A trading nation is a nation which will have a future by joining APEC or AFTA, so he has turned this nation into a nation of traders by force. Hence, he has urged his children to go into business. It is true. The Javanese aristocrats in the past never allow their children to go into business. It was considered a lowly occupation. Of course, there is a conflict of interest nowadays but in the future Indonesia definitely needs entrepreneurs. And only by turning Indonesians into traders can social harmony be achieved, since they will be able to compete with the Chinese Indonesians who have a strong trading tradition since that was their only occupation during the colonial period. There should be a balance to this situation. And to do this is not possible only by providing capital. People must have entrepreneurial spirit, a trading culture, values which to do view trade as a shameful occupation. (jsk, hbk)