The P-4 course

The P-4 course

The government has decided to cancel the seminar on first
President Sukarno's 1966 accountability speech before the
Provisional People's Consultative Assembly (Nawaksara) although I
do not know whether it is temporary or otherwise.

I believe the seminar, if held, would only create turmoil and
would be of no benefit. Whatever the reasons for canceling it, I
think the prevailing opinion is that any historical event should
only be judged by the individual. Someone may learn about a
historical event by studying it or reading a book or an article
by reliable historians, or through open group discussion. The end
result is a more honest opinion as it is not engineered.

A seminar on a certain historical event is only valid if there
is a definite guarantee that the attendants are allowed to talk
freely and openly without any fear of being detained and
questioned or facing an unknown risk.

But there is the surprising news that the assembly will become
one of many subjects in the Guide on Perception and Practice of
Pancasila (P-4 course). The government wants people to have a
common perception of the assembly. People believe the P-4 course
is not just an effort to build the nation anew, a nation which
upholds high morals in its fight against corruption and
collusion. The Nawaksara is therefore also expected to achieve a
certain political goal. People might question the idea behind the
inclusion of the Nawaksara in the P-4 course.

Why does the top-down process still linger? If we want to
succeed in the 21st century, the era of globalization and
information, I believe the bottom-up process should be the first
choice. We should start respecting differences of opinion and
perceptions. To be different does not necessarily mean to be in
conflict.

The West has different perceptions on the crusade, which is
itself a significant part of history. There are two groups of
crusade historians, the traditionalist and the pluralist. The
traditionalists regard the crusade as those expeditions which
were launched with the intention of defending or recovering the
Holy Land. Pluralists, by contrast, look for papal validation,
the granting of crusade status, preaching, and evidence of
recruitment. If such features are present, then a crusade took
place, irrespective of where the war was fought, of the nature of
the conflict, and of the offense caused to modern sensibilities,
for which the term "crusade" still carries a cargo of value
judgments equaled only by the word "chivalry" (The Later Crusades
from Lyon to Alcazar 1274-1580 by Norman Housley).

There is no effort to compromise differences between the
traditionalists and the pluralists, since differences enrich the
mind. The traditionalists judge the crusades differently from the
pluralists, and nobody feels it is necessary to make both groups
have similar perceptions.

W. PIENANDORO

Bogor, West Java