Since the beginning, the nation has been fragile

J. Soedjati Djiwandono, Jakarta

"What experience and history teach is this -- that people and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it" (Georg Wilhelm Hegel, quoted in G.B. Shaw's The Revolutionist's Handbook).

Today, 77 years ago, on Oct. 28, 1928, Indonesian youths, representing various youth organizations in their common struggle against Dutch colonial oppression made a pledge, that they had one fatherland, Indonesia; one nation, Indonesia, and one language, Indonesian." Every year since then we have celebrated Youth Pledge Day by singing those words in a beautiful song. That was the final determination, after long debates by the youths to, from then on -- regardless of differences in race, ethnicity, religious, traditional, cultural and language backgrounds -- build the nation of Indonesia. It was an expression of the ideal of national unity.

Indeed, the birth of the Indonesian nation itself was on Aug. 17, 1945, the day of the proclamation of Indonesian independence. Perhaps contrary to the idea contained in the quotation cited at the beginning of this commentary, the young leaders of this nation were aware of the historical fact that, for a period of over three centuries, intermittent but isolated revolts by different regions of the then-Netherlands East Indies against Dutch colonial rule were never successful.

Perhaps the Indonesian leaders of the time finally came to the bitter conclusion that only a united and concerted struggle by all the peoples throughout the territory would be able to oust the colonial rule. They were aware of the need for a new all-embracing and all-inclusive nation. The Indonesian nation was thus born primarily out of pragmatic considerations.

As regards Renan's idea of nationhood, his was simply a speculative, metaphysical or intellectual construct rather than a theory based on empirical evidence to explain or to understand the phenomenon of nationhood. As far as Indonesia is concerned, it seems arguable that the nation of Indonesia developed in line with Renan's conceptualization, as "a soul, spiritual principle", or "a great solidarity, created by the sentiment of the sacrifices which have been made, of those which one is disposed to make in the future.

"It presupposes a past; but it resumes itself in the present by a tangible fact: the consent, the clearly expressed desire to continue life in common." However, as far as Indonesia is concerned, the Youth Pledge could be seen as an expression of that kind of common desire among many "nations" in the narrow sense of the term.

Since its inception 77 years ago, however, as a nation Indonesia has remained fragile. Indeed, national unity seemed to be strong in the face of a common enemy, namely, Dutch colonialism. Once that common enemy was gone with the attainment of Indonesian independence as a nation-state, national unity has been challenged from the start by different views on the philosophical basis of the new state along a religious (Islamic) vs. nationalist/secular line.

The original draft constitution of the new nation-state of Indonesia was the Jakarta Charter, containing the famous "seven words", which provided for the imposition of the obligation to implement the Islamic sharia law for Muslims.

Just before its promulgation to be the provisional constitution of the new Republic of Indonesia the day after the proclamation of independence, those seven words were deleted in the interest of national unity. When put to the vote in the Constitutional Assembly resulting from the 1955 general election, the Muslims lost the vote to the nationalists.

Indeed, it is unfortunate that the resentment of the Muslims has continued to mark Indonesian politics to this day. Thus, to maintain what has proved to be a continuous pretense of national unity, the myth of unity has been maintained to this day by identifying the Indonesian republic as being "neither theocratic nor secular".

Thus, as a nation, Indonesia has remained fragile, because there is no set of common values that bind the Indonesian people together as a nation. National unity is surely an ideal, but its expression has been no more than a self-deception. It has continued to face the threat of disintegration by separatism, horizontal conflicts marked by religious tension, and constantly made worse by the ever-widening gap between the rich and the poor.

However, during the era of Sukarno's "guided democracy" and Soeharto's New Order that succeeded him, the pretext of national unity could be maintained by authoritarian rule. In this era of reform, however, which has been marked particularly by greater freedom of speech, the continuous threat to national unity can no longer be entirely concealed.

The three successive presidents in the post-Soeharto elections have all named their Cabinets with a phrase expressing concern over national unity, even if they have not reflected that concern in their policies. Thus, Gus Dur named his Cabinet one of "National Unity," president Megawati called her government the "Mutually Cooperative" (Gotong-Royong) Cabinet, and SBY has called his Cabinet one of "United Indonesia".

The continued existence of unjust laws that violate human rights, particularly freedom of worship, and other laws and regulations of a discriminatory nature reflect a lack of maturity in our concept of nationhood, which embraces the principle of pluralism as formulated in the motto "unity in diversity". One tends to forget that the Youth Pledge did not include a claim to one religion for the nation.

It will take further generations, if ever, until the nation will finally agree to a set of common values, commonly understood that will serve as a lasting foundation for national unity. God bless this country!

The writer, a PhD graduate from the London School of Economics, was an academic member of the UN Secretary-General's Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters from 1999-2000 and a consultant to the preparation of the UN Review Conference of NPT, 2000.