State ideology of Pancasila faces challenges
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.