State ideology of Pancasila faces challenges

-----------------------------------------------------------------

The following are excerpts from a paper presented at a seminar organized by the Driyarkara School of Philosophy recently in connection with its 25th anniversary. -----------------------------------------------------------------

By Nurcholish Madjid

JAKARTA: Pancasila is the premier asset we can mobilize in building democracy in this country. The state ideology equips us with the basic ingredients for creating democracy on a socio- political order that will bring goodness to all.

First, a recognition of god. Second, a respect for social values. Third, an awareness of shared responsibility, in the sense that we do not simply delegate the entire business of governing the people's fate to one single public figure--regardless of his goodwill-- but we entrust it instead to a mechanism of social control in a participatory order. And fourth, placing the needs of the many before the needs of the few or the one.

The combination of these four ingredients constitutes the infrastructure for building unity and solidarity in our nation state.

Therefore, the challenge of our democracy lies in how to encourage processes that will ensure these values endure and become a part of our day-to-day ventures. The following is an attempt to provide a list of important aspects of a democratic life based on materials that have more or less developed, both theoretically or in practice, in countries in which democracy has been established to a large extent:

The first is the importance of awareness of heterogeneity. Such an awareness does not consists only of a passive recognition of the reality of a diverse society. One can adapt to the democracy if one is able to use the dynamics and positive aspects of social diversity as a strength. A society that consistently adheres to a democratic way of life should simultaneously maintain and protect the broader scope of heterogeneity in a consistent manner. This necessitates a high level of personal morality.

In our political jargon, we have the term 'musyawarah' (from the Arabic word, originally meaning--more or less--"exchanging gestures"). The recognition of the meaning and spirit of musyawarah requires the awareness and maturity to sincerely accept the possibility of compromises and even the possibility of having to lose in deliberation. The Prophet Mohammed, for instance, in a musyawarah deliberating on the right strategy to counter the infidel Makkah, once failed to get his way. He sincerely and consistently accepted the decision made by the majority, and during the operation he rejected the second thoughts that some of his close friends were having.

The spirit of musyawarah requires people to accept the possibility of partial functioning of ideals, namely the princi ple that in a democracy it is not always the case, and it does not have to be the case, that our desires and suggestions will be accepted and implemented in full. One of the aspects of the spirit of musyawarah is how mature we are in presenting our opinion, in listening to the opinion of others, in accepting differences of opinion, and in the ability to recognize a better opinion.

In this connection, a real challenge for Indonesians lies in the fact that, within the half century of our independence, we have always lived under the leadership of one national figure (formerly Sukarno and now President Soeharto). Both these wise national figures have succeeded in bringing the whole Indonesian nation into a level closer to full maturity.

However--and this is the price that has to be paid by a society that is still 'young' and still finds itself in a growing process-- the experience of living under the leadership of a single national figure who possesses a very dominant personality has failed to expose us to the tradition of making our own decisions (bottom up) and has made us unable to see as well as to take advantage of alternatives (since all this time we have been trained to see only one). A monolithic and absolutist government runs counter to democracy.

Those who believe "the ends justify the means" attempt to reach their goals by methods that do not show moral consideration. A democratic way of life demands a conviction that the means should be in harmony with the ends.

Moreover, in fact, the worthiness of an objective should be justified by the decency of the chosen method for reaching it. As Albert Camus said, "Indeed the end justifies the means. But what justifies the end? The means!" Therefore, there should be no conflict between the two.

Every conflict between the means and the end, if allowed to proliferate, will certainly entail reactions destructive to democracy. For this reason, it is hard to imagine a democracy without high moral standards. Such high standards were demonstrated by the nobleness of Sultan Salah al-Din al-Ayyubi, who protected a soldier of his enemy (the Cross army) who strayed badly wounded into his tent. He cared for the soldier without revealing who he actually was--a commander of the Moslem army. When the soldier recovered, he was released in peace.

Another example was shown by the leaders of a branch of B'nai Brith in the U.S. who protected a neo-Nazi activist who came to confess that with his group, he had murdered a number of Semitic figures over there.

A sound mufakat ('consensus') based on honesty is the objective of every sound and honest musyawarah. Members of a democratic musyawarah are required to master and practice the arts of sound and honest deliberation in order to reach sound and honest mufakat. Any consensus that has been reached by means of engineering, manipulation or tactics involving conspiracies is not only a defective and dishonest consensus, but also a betrayal of the values and spirit of democracy.

Therefore, sincerity in the common endeavor to bring about a sound social order for all is a central requisite. This factor contains the element of liberation from narrow vested-interests.

Among all requirements for a decent living together we have the fulfillment of basic needs, namely, food, clothing and shelter. As these three dimensions are related to socio-cultural aspects (that determine why we eat rice,wear sarong, kopiah and kebaya, and live in a joglo house, for instance), the fulfillment of these economic needs is not independent of socio-cultural planning.

Members of a democratic society should be able to live with planned fulfillment of their basic needs, as well as to ensure that all the plans (such as, in a larger form, the Broad Outline of State Policy, or GBHN) are in conformity with the objectives and the practices of democracy. A check list for assessing the practices of true democracy can be made based on universal human values without disregarding the reality of cultural relativity.

Cooperation, the attitude among members of society that highlights mutual trust, and the ties between various social institutions are factors that demand a democracy.

Fragmentation in society, marked by mutual distrust, not only causes inefficiency in a democratic life, but leads to patterns of behavior that are against the basic characteristics of democracy. Recognition of the existence of a freedom of con science and egalitarianism requires an optimistic outlook.

On the other hand, a pessimistic outlook will make it difficult to avoid mistrust towards fellow human beings, and this will lead to reluctance to work together. In this connection, the problem of the colonial legacy that has not been entirely solved in many formerly colonialized societies will be a source of challenges and constraints to common efforts to build democracy.

In our daily life, we have become used to discussion on the need for teaching democracy. However, as we have had no real experience of a democratic life--which is further complicated by the fact that 'democracy' in this century is taken to mean modern democracy, our perception of the teaching of democracy in general is still limited to verbal indoctrination and spoon fed concepts.

The frustration that members of our society have with the discrepancy between what is preached and what is practiced -- public figures have repeatedly called on us to prevent collusion between business people and government officials, while they themselves are notably involved in such cases -- stems from the powerful cultural tendency to "teach" others (feudalistically) in our society.

The resulting rhetoric also brings its own satisfying effect. It relieves those who have done wrong from guilt, as they have taught others not to carry out the very same crimes. Since the views of a modern democratic life exist in this age of universal consciousness, their values should be integrated elements in our education, not in the sense of making them archaic curricular contents but in the sense of putting them into practice in the lived in experiences in our educational system.

We should seriously begin -- although there is already an institution that has done it -- to expose participants of our educational system and the public in general to the tradition of having differences of opinion and to the tradition of free and open deliberation for electing leaders and policy making.

Democracy is not given, but it is integrated into our actual daily experience and experiment. Consequently, a democracy requires an open ideology, not an ideology that has been formulated as "once and for all".

On the contrary, a closed ideology, tends to become obsolete, as was the case with communism. Therefore, Pancasila should be viewed and perceived as an open ideology, independent of its verbal formulation as written in the 1945 Constitution.

The interpretation of its precepts should always be allowed to change in pace with the dynamics of society and its qualitative development. The strength of democracy, with all its inherent shortcomings, lies in its ability to correct itself, an ability that stems from its own openness.

Dr. Nurcholish Madjid is chairman of Wakaf Paramadina foundation based in Jakarta.