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