The dangers of narrow-minded nationalism

The dangers of narrow-minded nationalism

Martin R. Jenkins, Consultant, Securities Firm, Jakarta

Born out of an independence struggle against Dutch
colonialism, it is perhaps understandable that Indonesia is prone
to strong nationalist sentiment. For years, the founding
president, Sukarno, pursued a policy of konfrontasi with the
United States and Europe, memorably telling the West to "go to
hell" with its aid.

But while such nationalist bravado may have shored up public
support in the short term, reality inevitably bit in. And it was
only a matter of time before Sukarno was ousted, with the
national economy in a shambles and inflation running at a
phenomenal annual rate of 650 percent.

Now in 2003, nationalism seems to be on the rise once again.
It has manifested itself in many guises: Anger at the sale of
state assets (such as Indosat) to foreign investors, strong
criticism of the IMF's role in Indonesia, a proposed end to visa
free entry for tourists from certain countries, and in the way
the government is dealing with separatism in Aceh.

To a certain extent, the rising nationalism recently can be
traced to the devastating terrorist bombings in Bali last year,
which killed nearly 200 people, and dramatically changed the
political milieu. Prior to the bombings, the government of
President Megawati Soekarnoputri had been extremely careful not
to alienate Islamic elements within Indonesia, including those
inside her own government.

Vice-President Hamzah Haz even courted some of the most
controversial Islamic personalities such as Laskar Jihad's Jafar
Thalib and Abu Bakar Bashir, the alleged spiritual leader of
Jemaah Islamiyah.

The bombings, however, awoke the government out of its
slumber, allowing it to crack down hard on the religious zealots
without prompting much of a reaction from the Islamic community
at large. But besides sidelining the Islamists, the increasingly
nationalistic Megawati administration has also paid scant
attention to the demands of the democratic reform movement.

Virtually no progress has been made in instigating much-needed
reforms to address seriously the endemic corruption that is
eating away at the heart of society. The nationalist juggernaut
is on the move, and woe to those that get in its way.

There are those, however, that point to the achievements of
the government in reducing the threat of terrorism and in
bringing about far improved security conditions regardless of the
feeble efforts to create a more just and less corrupt society.
But while this may be true, the dangers of allowing the rising
nationalism to go unchecked are manifold.

First, nationalism, like racism or ethnocentrism, can be
explosively dangerous. It plays on feelings of hate, and can
allow a state to kill its own citizens with impunity. Look at how
the government is dealing with separatism in Aceh. Does it never
learn from history? Was it not so long ago that former president
Soeharto turned Aceh into a bloody military zone in a bid to
eliminate the separatist threat? But were the military operations
successful? Why should they be so this time around? What is so
different?

By playing the nationalist card, the military is able to
curtail debate on the effectiveness of a military solution in
Aceh. Dissent in the press is not tolerated. The military doesn't
even believe that the problem should be seen objectively: The
press must now report the conflict in "patriotic terms".

With the military talking of "wiping out the rebels", as if
they cannot even be considered to be human beings, is it any
wonder that events in Aceh have unfolded as they have?

Nationalism also leads to arrogance. The unfortunate shootings
of a German couple by Indonesian troops in Aceh as they camped on
the beach, is a case in point. Although the military regretted
the incident, they also said that the tourists had been "stupid"
in deciding to visit a conflict zone.

While this may be true it also underlines the lack of checks
and balances on military conduct in Aceh. It seems that the
troops are shooting at people without even bothering to identify
who they are beforehand. If the military is unable to distinguish
German tourists from fighters of the Free Aceh Movement (GAM),
what hope is there that troops can differentiate ordinary
civilians from the rebels?

Another danger of nationalism is that it encourages the belief
that a country's woes are not homegrown. If our country is so
fantastic, then what is there that can be learnt from the rest of
the world? Look at the criticism the IMF has received for its
role in trying to recover the Indonesian economy.

Some leading politicians have even attributed the nation's
financial troubles to the institution. But while the
effectiveness of some of its policies may be debatable, to put
the blame on the IMF for weak economic performance is akin to a
cancer patient blaming his doctor for his condition even though
he has been smoking 20 Marlboros a day over the last 10 years.

Nationalism also leads to an unhealthy distrust of foreigners.
It is partly this sentiment that is behind the government's new
policy of putting an end to visa free entry for tourists from
certain countries.

Better to "keep out" foreigners who may pose a threat to
national security. Why else would the government implement a
policy that would strongly discourage foreign tourists from
visiting Indonesia, thus putting the livelihoods of many
Indonesians who work in the tourism industry in jeopardy?

This distrust toward foreigners was also reflected in the
opposition toward the Indosat sale to a foreign investor from
Singapore toward the end of 2002 even though the divestment
raised Rp5.6 trillion for the government, making a significant
contribution toward plugging the gapping budget deficit and thus
improving investor sentiment.

As nationalism stifles dissent, it also stunts growth. What
would a person be like if he or she was never subject to
criticism? How would a person grow if his or her ideas were never
challenged? The same is true of a nation. Nationalism often leads
to ignorance, intolerance and blindness to shortcomings. As such,
nationalism will eventually lead to ruin. Will this be the case
for Indonesia? We can only hope not.