RI on the brink of disintegration?

RI on the brink of disintegration?

By Desra Percaya

LONDON (JP): Indonesia has been utterly engulfed by the
reemergence of separatist movements and religious and ethnic
conflicts following the downfall of former presidents Soeharto
and B.J. Habibie. The coming to power of President Abdurrahman
Wahid has not in any way ended these phenomena. On the contrary,
they have tended to escalate and further deteriorate
respectively. This leads us to ask: Is Indonesia heading toward
disintegration?

This article examines the sources of disintegration from
international, regional and domestic perspectives.

The end of the Cold War has undoubtedly become a nightmare for
many developing countries as it appeared to unleash the forces of
nationalism that had been suppressed by many authoritarian
regimes, either supported by anti-Communist American
administrations or by the former Soviet Union.

Although these phenomena also occurred in developed countries,
the main difference has been that in those countries the process
tended to take place in a relatively peaceful manner, while in
developing countries it often turned into bloodshed and violent
events. This has been the case with Indonesia.

The transformation of international configuration has
undoubtedly affected Indonesia, as its strategic and political
importance vis-a-vis the Western powers, especially the United
States, has dramatically diminished. This was particularly
evident in the context of the fate of communism in international
politics, which had been the driving force for the United States
to support Indonesia under the New Order. Indeed, the signs of
change took place after the coming of the Clinton administration,
which placed human rights as one of America's foreign policy
pillars. As a result, both governments were often on a collision
course with each other.

Nevertheless, the United States does not want to see Indonesia
disintegrate. Washington has always recognized the importance of
Indonesia to its strategic interests in Asia, and the role
Jakarta plays in regional diplomacy.

At a recent one-day conference on U.S.-Indonesia relations in
Jakarta, the U.S. Ambassador, Robert S. Gelbard, extensively
described the ups and downs of the relations between the two
countries, and expressed America's satisfaction at the coming of
democracy in Indonesia. More importantly, he underlined that
American interests are best served by an Indonesia that is
peaceful, stable, unified and prosperous.

Interestingly, in recent years there has emerged another
player in international politics, namely non-governmental
organizations (NGOs). Their influence over decision-makers and
their ability to shape public opinion should not be
underestimated. In previous governments, Jakarta was always
averse to NGOs. However, President Abdurrahman's determination to
promote democracy and human rights should place him at ease in
dealing with them.

In this regard, cooperation should be extended to those NGOs
that are genuinely concerned with the promotion and protection of
human rights and democracy. Thus, they should see by themselves
the complexities of the problems and dilemmas faced by the
government, particularly the choice between respecting the right
to self-determination and maintaining Indonesia's territorial
integrity and unity.

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) succeeded
in maintaining the principle of noninterference and respect of
territorial integrity and sovereignty among its members. This
means that none of the ASEAN members should render any kind of
support that might lead to the breakup of one of its fellow-
members. The ASEAN countries do not want to see Indonesia
disintegrate, a possibility which would not only create
instability in the region, but could also trigger a similar
movement in Southeast Asia.

Abdurrahman's government has shown its willingness to let its
ASEAN counterparts discuss the problems in Indonesia that
potentially have regional repercussions. This is a step forward
from the previous era in which noninterference was a kind of
sacred word.

Domestically, the source of disintegration should be examined
from the concept of the state. What is a state? It is generally
understood as primarily a political-legal concept which refers to
an independent and autonomous political structure over a specific
territory, with a comprehensive legal system, a sufficient
concentration of the legal system and a sufficient concentration
of power to maintain law and order. A state must fulfill the
requirement of a physical base which includes provinces and
population, institutions of some sort which govern the physical
base, and the presence of an idea of the state which establishes
its legitimacy in the minds of its people (Buzan, People, States
and Fear, 1991).

By any standard, Indonesia is indisputably a developing
country. Its creation was the product of the decolonization wave
at the end of World War II. In terms of its boundaries, the
Indonesian leaders claimed the vast territory of the Dutch East
Indies to be part of Indonesia. Apart from the anomalies of the
crushing of Malaysia and East Timor, Indonesia has never been a
revisionist state and has always maintained a good neighbor
policy.

Despite its wide range of diversities, the population which
inhabited the provinces was considered as Indonesian.
Accordingly, to keep the scattered provinces and diverse
population intact, the leaders agreed to adopt an integralist
state, which gave the executive a wide range of powers and
authority.

As far as the idea of the state is concerned, its main sources
are to be found in organizing ideology and the concept of a
nation. Although the interpretation of ideology is concerned with
a set of assumptions and ideas about social behavior and social
systems, its application in the political field has been far-
reaching. Indeed, Sukarno was able to introduce Pancasila as the
basic state ideology. He expressed the idea of Pancasila to
provide an ideology that all Indonesians could accept and depend
upon to cultivate consensus and harmony among the diversified
Indonesians.

Unfortunately, Sukarno's efforts at implementing Pancasila
were overtaken by a sequence of political events, particularly
during the implementation of "guided democracy". On the contrary,
under the New Order, Pancasila was further elaborated and put
into effect in almost every sense. It even became a national
ideology and political platform for just about everything.

What is a nation? Mostafa Rejai and Cynthia H. Enloe define it
as a relatively large group of people who feel that they belong
together by virtue of sharing one or more traits such as a common
language, religion or race, a common history or tradition, a
common set of customs and a common destiny.

In his speech on the introduction of Pancasila on June 1,
1945, Sukarno also defined a nation by adopting Ernest Renan's
views, which emphasize that the people felt themselves to be
united and wanted to be united. Sukarno also quoted Otto Bauer
who defines a nation as a community of character, which has grown
out of a community of shared experience.

Indonesia can therefore be categorized as a multiethnic
nation-state, which means that the state (read the government)
plays an instrumental role in creating the nation, rather than
the other way round.

This fact has led to many of the difficulties that Indonesia
has encountered in integrating its various ethnic, cultural and
religious divisions into one single entity of the nation by
encouraging people to show their loyalty to the newly-created
state or the 'nation-building' process.

Unlike the other two elements, the idea of the state is
considered as the most abstract part, but it is also the most
important one. The reason is because of its ability to unite the
population or to explain why the people are bound together into a
sociopolitical and territorial entity.

It is from this perspective that the source of disintegration
mainly originates. Abdurrahman's government is in the process of
transformation toward democracy that has recently emerged from
the previously authoritarian and weak central governments.
Accordingly, the idea of the state needs to be rejuvenated to
enable it to glue the elements of the provinces, population and
institution into a strong state with solid sociopolitical
cohesion.

It is a matter of urgency, therefore, for the President to
address the acute problem of Indonesia's unity, to put the
nation-building process back on track and to revive a shared
common purpose and loyalty.

The involvement of a deeper root of participation among the
population and informal leaders, such as Nurcholish Madjid,
popularly known as Cak Nur, are paramount.

Unless immediate action is taken, disintegration will
undoubtedly turn from a possibility into a reality. If this were
to happen, Indonesian leaders could only blame only themselves.
Therefore the political bonds among the country's elite leaders
must be broken immediately. Over to you Cak Nur.

The writer is a PhD candidate at the Department of Politics,
Durham University, United Kingdom.