The nation needs to reformulate "Being Indonesian"

The nation needs to reformulate its identity

If society is taken to be an organized set of individuals with a given way of life, culture is that way of life. Society emphasizes the human component, the aggregate of people and the relations between them. Culture emphasizes the component of accumulated resources, immaterial as well as material, which the people inherit, employ, transmute, add to, and transmit.

-- Raymond W. Firth

Observing developments in Indonesia during the last three years, one wonders where this country is heading for. The multidimensional crisis that the country is facing goes on unabated despite all the fuss made about political, social, and economical reforms being undertaken.

The economy does not seem to be moving anywhere. The political scene is more preoccupied with power struggles between the government and the House of Representatives. The whole legal system has turned into an open market where rules and regulations are mere commodities with negotiable prices. Implementation of regional autonomy is degrading into political parochialism, where one can easily see the replacement of Jakarta's centralism with centralism of the regions.

More and more people are asking themselves whether Indonesia will still exist in the next five years or so. The Jakarta Post's panel of experts mulled this worrying question. It boils down to the fact that there has been no serious discourse on reviewing the concept of Indonesia from the cultural point of view.

Indonesia is a very young nation. Its population of more than 210 million people is spread across three time zones, consists of more than 200 ethnic groups, and speaks more than 300 different languages. Commonality - except for the fact that it was a collection of Dutch colonies for more than three centuries - is hard to find among such diverse groups of people. Consequently, Indonesia, proclaimed an independent nation in 1945, has not developed naturally.

Indonesia's founding fathers envisioned the importance of nation building. They saw the need of developing a common attitude, will, viewpoint, values, character and behavior - in short, the contents of culture - which contribute to the goal of living together as a nation, of being Indonesian. For the nascent Indonesian nation, that goal was formulated in the will to promote and realize cita-cita persatuan Indonesia (the ideal of Indonesian unity).

During the Old Order of Sukarno, the first president (1945- 1966), the efforts to popularize the cita-cita persatuan Indonesia took the form of - among other things - fostering the character of a young revolutionary and progressive Indonesian. The emphasis was on a never-ending revolution. Anybody who did not live up to that image was considered and treated as an enemy of the nation.

During the New Order of Soeharto, the second president (1967- 1998), a different approach was used, i.e. the character of manusia pembangunan (man of development). The emphasis was on economic development. Anybody who was against economic development, as defined by the government, was considered subversive.

Sukarno's years were characterized by political indoctrination using Sukarno's collection of speeches. Similarly, Soeharto's years were characterized by penataran BP7 (indoctrination of the state guidelines, Pancasila). Both emphasized the superiority of the state above the sovereignty of the people. Both disregarded the importance of culture as the means of coordinating, integrating, regulating and directing human endeavor toward the common goal of the Indonesian nation, indeed of mankind: a more secure and better existence.

Both did not bring the nation anywhere near the cita-cita persatuan Indonesia as described earlier.

The coming into existence of Indonesia was like a journey of different groups of people coming from different villages toward a new dream village called Indonesia. The nascent grouping had no idea at all about what Indonesia would be like, what would be its sociopolitical climate, how would they live together in harmony, feeling more secure and comfortable.

It all happened so suddenly back in 1945. Nobody knew how to live in the new village, what were the regulations, how should one behave toward another, what language should be used, which ethnic tradition should be maintained, which tribal wisdom should be adhered to in conflict resolution, and so forth.

The first five decades of Indonesia's existence did not properly answer those questions. It was a classic case of a culture in the making, but was not taken care of properly. Former attitudes, character, value systems, and viewpoints originating from former villages were kept under the rug, even though those elements over the years had proved to be contradictory to the needs of modern Indonesia.

It is not surprising that when things go wrong in the new village, the old sectarian attributes resurface, easily provoking and creating havoc.

Indeed, culture is not a medicine that can cure all kinds of civilization diseases. The panel of experts describes culture as similar to jamu, or traditional herbal potions. Jamu does not heal diseases. What jamu can do is provide elements or preconditions to keep people healthy, to make people more resistant to diseases.

Using culture as a tool to better understand the fragility of Indonesia in the making, the panel of experts proposed several options deemed crucial in the reform agenda.

First of all is the lack of leadership, which is obvious in young people's organizations, in religious institutions, in the bureaucracy, civilian as well as military, in political parties and business associations. The current leadership in almost all institutions is not only weak; it is deteriorating to the extent of becoming close to collapse at this stage.

It is the result of the habit of looking up to one figure in the narrow sense, as people tend to feel uneasy or deem it improper to demand the accountability of their leader. The attribute or status of a religious figure, a charismatic character, the title of professor or other dignitaries does not guarantee the existence of leadership qualities.

Second, cultivating future leaders in most institutions seems to be of lesser priority compared to other activities within institutions. There are lots of examples where "fit and proper tests" as applied by many government institutions really insult common sense. In many instances, even bad track records have not closed off higher positions for many highly-connected individuals. Non-government organizations have not fared much better.

Third, something fundamental has to be done to change the attitude, behavior and cultural orientation within the Indonesian bureaucracy. The bureaucracy should develop a system to make sure that each of its members lives up to a high standard of efficiency, austerity, diligence. And of course it goes without saying that its members must not steal public money. The fact that firing people is alien to the bureaucracy is an obsolete attitude and should be turned upside down.

Last but not least, the politicization of religion as practiced in the legislature, on the streets and elsewhere should come to an end. Experience proves that the politicization of religion has never benefited any religion, instead it always abuses religion for the narrow interests of specific individuals or groups.