'United we fall apart, dispersed we are strong'

'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.