When Indonesia's unity is no longer voluntary

When Indonesia's unity is no longer voluntary

Max Lane, Visiting Fellow, Center for Asia Pacific Social
Transformation Studies, University of Wollongong, New South Wales,
Australia

The persistence of the movement for a self-determination
referendum in Aceh, the emergence of the Papuan Peoples Council
and the troubles in Ambon have all raised concerns about whether
Indonesian unity can be maintained.

Indonesia's process of achieving a national unity during the
first six decades, and especially the first four decades, of the
20th century is somewhat unique. There are indeed very few
countries where the national unification of a multi-ethnic
territory occurred without war.

Of course the territorial boundaries and basic economic
structure -- taxes, treasury, customs, a single currency etc --
were created by the Dutch. But the fundamental components of a
national language, a national culture and a common perspective
for an independent Indonesia was created in the face of extreme
hostility from the Dutch.

Dutch policy fostered local tradition over any new national
political or general Indonesian culture. Dutch policy suppressed
the main instruments of national unification: The political
movements and political parties. Finally when the Dutch realized
in 1949 that independence was inevitable, they insisted on a
federal structure and tried to carry out a divide and rule
policy.

A unitary state, reflecting a state based on a nation building
process aimed at completing the creation of a single Indonesian
nation was voluntarily accepted by the vast majority of all the
independence movement, from Sabang to Merauke.

Maintaining the voluntary character of struggle to establish
an Indonesian state, build a single Indonesian nation and all the
associated political institutions meant one thing: Democracy.
Democracy was Sukarno's reply to Muslims who called for an
Islamic state. He called on them to win majority support.
Relations between center and province also required open and
democratic processes, reflected in the open competition between
political parties for influence in the provinces as well as in
the national parliament.

The emergence of self-determination movements in Aceh and West
Papua have been caused by the escalating violation of the
principles of democracy and voluntary unity since the 1950s, but
most particularly during the repressive years of the New Order
regime. Any violation of the orginal voluntary character destroys
the original basis of unity.

In West Papua, the original Act of Free Choice was a
manipulation which completely violated the principle of voluntary
unity. In Aceh, the period of military operations in the 1980s,
reactivated in a new form today, also completely broke the the
principle of voluntary unity. The early calls for independence
were not answered in the way that Sukarno, or first Mohammad
Hatta, or Mohammed Yamin or other nationalist leaders would have
answered such calls.

They would have answered with argument and visions for a
democratic future for Indonesia. All the early nationalist
leaders were able to take that approach because most of them were
indeed democrats.

Soeharto was a militarist with no convincing vision of a
democratic future. The New Order's dictatorship contradicted all
talk of "Panca Sila" democracy. Soeharto used coercion by arms
almost immediately any sign of a desire for independence
surfaced.

And so it became inevitable that popular commitment to the
vision of Indonesia, began to diminish in Aceh and West Papua.
Acehnese and Papuan nationalism developed -- these were not
realities in 1945.

The New Order also weakened nation building everywhere. The
essential engines of nation building since the 1920s have been
the political parties and political movements. These parties and
movements, representing different interests in society, were
divided sharply by ideological outlook, from left to right. They
fought and struggled hard. But they fought and struggled hard
about the future of Indonesia, about their vision of how an
independent Indonesian nation and state should develop.

They involved tens of millions of people in this great battle
for the future of Indonesia. It may have been a bitter struggle
but it was based on participation and commitment and a passion
about the future of the new country.

When Soeharto destroyed the political parties, by crushing the
left-wing parties and by "simplification" of the center and
right-wing parties. All the old parties of the 1950s, except for
the left, have resurfaced in one form or another today but they
are all bankrupt of their ideological commitment.

They are infected with all the diseases of the New Order:
Self-seeking and only looking for the immediate gain. Only the
genuinely new formations, like the Peoples Democratic Party (PRD)
and some worker, peasant, student and women's organizations are
free of the New Order political culture.

There are no more vehicles that provide for genuine mass
participation in determining the future. The economic crisis
means that Indonesia's very future is being redefined. But mas
commitment to "Indonesia" weakens, hence the many demands for
special treatment for provinces and regencies. Autonomy has
become an excuse for localism. The political elite, created by
the New Order, cannot solve this problem.

The peoples of the archipelago decided to unite in the 1920s
to build a new nation and state as an answer to colonialism. The
cry "From Sabang to Marauke" was a cry for unity against a
marauding and oppressive Western colonialism. Marauding and
oppressive Western colonialism is still here. Now it is not the
Dutch, but the United States, the IMF and the "War against
Terror". The IMF now wages economic war against the Indonesian
people in the interests of U.S. and Western businesses greedy for
cheap assets and minerals and access to the Indonesian mass
market.

Unity from "Sabang to Merauke" is still needed. But, as in the
1920s, it can not be achieved by force but only voluntarily. But
today there are also new realities: Acehnese nationalism and
Papuan nationalism. A democratic approach to this reality cannot
avoid the holding of self-determination referendums. Of course,
this carries the risk that the Acehnese and Papuan people may
choose independence -- a decision which must be accepted.

But this does not mean that the struggle for voluntary unity
must stop. There can be many forms of unity: Federation,
confederation, even alliances between independent states. Perhaps
in Aceh, agreement could be reached for a second referendum in 10
years time to confirm whatever decision the people made after
experiencing the new reality.

But the strongest and most effective unity that can help the
people in their fight for sovereignty against the IMF marauders
is one based on a voluntary acceptance and commitment to both the
idea of unity itself and the form of that unity. Unity can only
be achieved if all forms of coercion stop.

The writer is the translator of the Buru Quartet series of
novels by Pramoedya Ananta Toer and of the plays and poems of
W.S. Rendra.