'United we fall apart, dispersed we are strong'

By Marianus Kleden

KUPANG, East Nusa Tenggara (JP): After Kupang and Ambon were ransacked, the Indonesian government made a statement concerning the possibility of the release of East Timor from the national polity if the coming proposed enlarged autonomy for the youngest province were rejected.

All these events have given us sufficient reason to question whether we are living in genuine unity or simply pretending to be one nation?

The first condition implies the blend of different subcultures into one distinctive culture and the loss of primal identities to form a totally new and synthetic oneness. The second circumstance suggests a symbiotic coexistence where groups of people live side by side peacefully with considerable mutual influence without change of identity. In the first instance unity is a fact while in the second unity is a product of will.

There are two political as well as one cultural item of jargon connoting these two conditions respectively. The first piece of jargon is 'Diverse but one' whereas the second is 'united we are strong, dispersed we fall apart'. The United States and Indonesia might be the best examples of the first, while Germany, Yemen, the Jews in Diaspora and probably Korea illustrate the second situation.

From a different perspective we may state just the contrary, and judging from the historical experiences of certain countries we can say that the most conspicuous facts are 'one but diverse' and 'united we fall apart, dispersed we are strong'.

India, for example, when it was still united with Pakistan and Bangladesh, was constantly shaken by ethnic as well as religious conflicts. Only after Pakistan and Bangladesh were released to become independent states, did India grow relatively stable.

The same thing holds true for the Soviet Union and especially Yugoslavia. Koentjaraningrat, the noted anthropologist, who once conducted research in Yugoslavia concluded that Yugoslavia and Indonesia have much in common as far as national unity is concerned.

Fully-fledged stability is gained after clear-cut separation is carried out. In other words, 'dispersed we are strong'. Asserting that East Timor has long been a thorn in the flesh is another way of saying that we are much better off without -- or 'dispersed' from -- this troubling half-island.

These different and quasi-contradictory experiences pose the problem of the definition of a nation. In older dictionaries (e.g. Oxford, 1933 as quoted here) a nation is defined as 'a distinct race or people characterized by common descent, language, history, usually organized as a political state and occupying a definite territory'.

Indonesia does not seem to fit the definition. We are of different descent, we speak different native languages, we were under the same colonial Dutch but with such a different intensity in terms of time-span, treatment and exposure to oppression from place to place.

This definition appears very suitable for the above mentioned countries that fell apart in the course of their history but later reunited or planned to reunite. The cementing element for national unity and cohesion is similarity.

Newer dictionaries give quite unlike definitions. Webster (1978) defines a nation as 'a people inhabiting a certain territory and united by common political institutions'. Longman (1989) perceives a nation as 'a large group of people living in one area and usually having an independent government'. Contrary to the older definition, these newer delineations seem to imply that the cementing element for national unity and cohesion is not similarity but diversity.

For a nation with similarities unity is more a fact whereas for a nation with diversity unity is a product of will or, to be more precise, a repeatedly renewed will and determination.

In the course of Indonesian history there has been a dialectic between the idea of a nation as a fact and the notion of a nation as a product of will. The Youth Pledge of 1928 and Proclamation of Independence of 1945 indicated a strong will to build a nation. Being aware of obvious diversity among the people in the country, Sukarno in his famous speech entitled 'The Birth of Pancasila' quoted Ernest Renan as contending that the precondition to forming a nation is le desir d'etre ensemble which may translate as a desire or even a will to assemble, to unite.

On the other hand, in the era of Soeharto, instead of emphasizing this will, in the doctrines of P-4 citizens are taught to take for granted that we are but one nation and recognize it as a fact. Recent developments concerning national cohesion disprove the doctrines of P-4 on national unity and remind us to reemphasize the importance of the will to live as one nation.

There has been a shift in the concept of a nation as a fact to the concept of nation as a product of will and this must be traced all the way back to the development of the liberalism in Europe in the 18th century that highlighted equality in basic rights and human dignity. If all men are created equal, then it becomes obsolete to talk about common descent, language and history that tend to create differentiation among men. It therefore becomes irrelevant to build a country based on commonality of descent, language and history.

Our ensuing question is whether our political institutions as mentioned in newer definitions of a nation are strong enough to function as a cementing constituent that holds the whole entity (nation as a will) and whether common descent, language and history do not contribute anything to the cohesion of a nation (nation as a fact). The answer is no for both questions.

Realizing the importance of both, Sukarno, as already stated, embarked on building a new nation by stressing the necessity of desire and the will of the whole citizenry to bring the newly proclaimed country as opposed to a nation into being.

In a later development Soeharto began to create political idioms in order for the people to accept the nation as a given fact. The political idioms such as one ideology and its official interpretations, distinct political as well as economic systems, common historical background and ancestry as taught to boys and girls from elementary school to high school, common character and etiquette expressed in hospitality, helpfulness and tolerance -- all these are meant to demonstrate Indonesia's existence as a fait accompli. We are grateful for both efforts that have contributed significantly to the enhancement of the cohesion of the nation.

Nevertheless both have weaknesses. Too much emphasis on the will to build a nation might ignore the fundamental tendency toward similarities found at every level of psychological development in any field. Just to mention one example, couples tend to be of one race, one ethnicity, equal educational levels, similar social and economic backgrounds and others.

Analogously a nation tends to be comprised of a people with similar characteristics. What is going to be affirmed here is that we cannot base our will to build a nation upon a void.

On the other hand putting too much weight on the similarities might result in a cheap and artificial romanticization of a nonsense.

East Timor might be a thorn in our flesh, yet among the thorns there is a rose. This little half-island down in the south can be a rose that adorns this archipelago. The question is: Do we have the will to bring that about without ignoring the factual similarities between us?

The writer is a social science lecturer at Widya Mandyra Catholic University.