The nation needs to reformulate "Being Indonesian"

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.