Democracy

Economy

Education

Development

Global Issues

Research

Part of chapter 4: Our Neighbors and Our Vision of our book "Indonesia: The Agenda" to be published in October 2003. 

See part 1:  Who are our neighbors?

04/26/03

Realizing that our neighbors are all people is one thing, understanding who our immediate neighbors are is quite another. As one nation, our immediate neighbors are all Indonesians, from Sabang in Aceh to Merauke in Irian Jaya.  All who call themselves Indonesians and all who have aspiration for a better Indonesia: Prosperous, democratic and united.

Just as people cannot choose their parents, people cannot choose their country-birth by themselves.[1] And just as people can have adopting parents, people can also have adopting country. But one thing remain intact, their birthplace. This often-overlooked fact should tell us something that is our country birth is not a random process. Rather, it is inherently embedded in our purpose in life: To be valuable to our selves, our family, our nation and our world.

A call for unity

Whether someone is Indonesian by birth or by adoption, his immediate neighbors are clear: All Indonesians.  About 75 years ago, young Indonesians understand this notion perfectly.  On October 28, 1928, delegates to the second Indonesian Youth Congress in Jakarta pledged their allegiance to "one country, one nation and one language: Indonesia.”

It is easy to take something for granted when everything seems working well in our favor. It is easy to get upset and frustrated when all things go wrong. And it is easy to get confused when all things seem unclear. Most Indonesians are either upset, frustrated, confused or taking for granted of the current developments in their country. Nevertheless, as Carl Schurz, a German-born US general and politician, once said, “ Our country, right or wrong. When right to be kept right. When wrong, to be put right,” Indonesians’ duty is to put their country right. The young Indonesians in the 1920s realized that the first step to put their country right (independent) was to be united.

About 17 years later, a founding father, the first Indonesian president, Soekarno put this formally and brilliantly in his speech at the session of Badan Penyelidik Usaha Persiapan Kemerdekaan Indonesia – BPUPKI (a committee to prepare for Indonesian Independence) in June 1, 1945,

“My fellow Indonesians, we have been meeting for three days. Many ideas have been proposed. It is true what Mr. Soekiman and Mr. Ki Bagoes Hadikoesoemo have said that we have to search for agreement. We are all searching for a united philosophy that we all agree upon. I said it again. I agree with what Mr. Yamin, Ki Bagoes, Ki Hajar, Mr. Sanoesi, Mr. Abikoesno, Mr. Lim Koen Hian have agreed upon. Essentially, we all are searching for one mode.  Mr. Yamin, this is not a compromy, but we are all searching for one thing that we all agree. What is that? First of all, my fellows, I am asking you: Are we going to establish an independent Indonesia for one person or for one particular group of people?”

“We are going to establish a country not for a single individual, not for a particular group, but for all. All is for all.....For more than 25 years, this thought have filled my soul that is..the first fundament of Indonesia is nationality.”[2] Soekarno then went on to explain what nationality means. He said that nationality is a strong bond among people who have the same aspirations as well as a strong bond between people and the place where they dwell. Essentially, it is the combined unity among people and between people and their place.

During the preparation for an independent Indonesia, the founding fathers were not laid-back.  They seriously and intensely debated the kinds of basic principles upon which the future state would be founded. The sharp differences were mainly on the basis and the territory of the future nation. One group proposed Islam as the basis, while other groups favored a secular state.  Making appeals to the history and territorial claims of Majapahit, Muhammad Yamin proposed that the new nation should include Sarawak, Sabah, Malaya and Portuguese Timor, as well as all the territories of the Netherlands Indies.

The following brief chronology will summarize the debates.  On 1 June 1945, President Sukarno delivered a famous speech in which he proposed a compromise that the state would be neither an Islamic nor a secular state but a Pancasila state.[3] On June 22, 1945, Sukarno headed a special commission to resolve the disputes over the role of Islam in the new Republic and settled on compromise language which was later known as the Piagam Jakarta or Jakarta Charter. The compromise language simply states that Muslims are obligated to follow Islamic law.  On the territorial issue, during the second BPUPKI session (July 10-17, 1945) for discussions to draft a constitution for Indonesia, Hatta criticized Yamin's nationalistic statements. He suggested that West Irian might be left out of the new Indonesia. Haji Agus Salim broke the deadlock by suggesting that people in the British and Portuguese possessions could vote on whether to join Indonesia. And, on August 18, 1945, Piagam Jakarta mentioning Islam among the Pancasila principles was dropped from the preamble to the new constitution. At the same day, the New Republic emerged which consisted of 8 provinces: Sumatra, Borneo, West Java, Central Java, East Java, Sulawesi, Maluku, and Sunda Kecil.[4]

More than a half-century later and as the number of provinces has increased from 8 to 30, the issue of national disunity is still the country's greatest threat.  In a State of the Nation delivered ahead of today's Independence Day celebrations on August 16, 2000, former President Abdurrahman Wahid stated, “The founding fathers of this state had from the very beginning come to an agreement that the democratic Indonesian nation state does not belong to a group of people, not even the majority - either in terms of ethnicity, religion, social class or social stratum.” He added, “This republic belongs to all Indonesian people.”[5]

One year later, at her sworn-in as the new president of Indonesia following the ouster of the country's embattled leader, Abdurrahman Wahid, Megawati Sukarnoputri - the daughter of the first Indonesia’s president Sukarno -, appealed to Indonesians to put their differences aside and build a great nation.

"To all the people of Indonesia wherever you are, I ask let's look to the future and let's unite and develop and fix our nation as one nation," she said during her acceptance speech.  "We need togetherness in order to face the challenges and we also need a political situation that is calmer so we can face all the challenges."[6]

The founding fathers, former President Wahid and President Megawati all understand the nature of Indonesia: A very diverse nation. With 17,670 islands (6,000 inhabited), Indonesia is the world's largest archipelago, stretching nearly 5.000 km from the west to the east, curling around the equator. It is a home to a diversity of cultures and indigenous beliefs with about 500 tribes and correspondingly, it has about 500 languages and dialects.[7]

Geographically, Indonesia is on a crossroads between two oceans, the Pacific and the Indian oceans. It is bridges two continents, Asia and Australia. This strategic position has always influenced the cultural, social, political and economic life of the country, make it vulnerable to international geopolitics turbulences.

Given these facts, unity is crucial and realizing it is the first step toward building a better Indonesia.

 Table 1. Indonesia, Basic Facts

Source: Indonesia Handbook 2000, the Directorate of Foreign Information Services of Department of Information.  See also, About Indonesia, Department of Foreign Affairs. http://www.dfa-deplu.go.id/background. a) = Source: CIA, the World Factbook 2002.

A reversed paradigm

That’s why we often hear unity in diversity. This paradigm is based on the fact that there exists differences and while differences exist, we should promote unity. Unity is what holds differences together. There is nothing wrong with it. However, a closer look of this paradigm may offer another useful one. The main focus in unity in diversity paradigm is on unity by taking diversity into account. The main struggle is how to realize and keep the unity.

The call for unity itself lies in the very nature of human beings.  A human being is an individual, but also part of a living whole whose influences for good and ill must be poured into the lives of others, and theirs received into his. He cannot evolve except in relation to his fellow-beings. Under the influence of his conscience a human being must synthesize and prove by action that difference need not clash with difference, but should be built up into a unity.

Building any unity is in fact building upon the relational aspects of its diversities.  It is an emphasis on those relational aspects.  This is not the same thing as building a uniformity which may limit the characteristics of the diversities so that they appear the same.  Unfortunately, in so doing diversity often becomes a passive notion, it is often viewed antagonistic with the unity notion, it is less appreciated and sadly it becomes something that has to be feared.  Making a unity is not about repressing diversities.  It is about the facilitating of consciousness about diversities so that they recognize core element(s) in their inter-relationship and hence bring people to unity. Therefore, unity is based on two fundamental things: Diversity and core elements (relations) that bind the diversity.

Imagine a family or household of four members: father, mother, one son and one daughter.  They are diverse in nature. The father is working full time, has his own hobby and has his own view about life. The mother is working part time, has her own hobby and has her own view about life, as well.  The first son, lives in a different town, is in college. He has his own hobby and his view about life. The daughter is in high school and she has her own hobby and her own view about life, as well. Most of the times, they are doing different things. There are only a few of their hobbies which are intersected with each other.  Yet, they are united because they have core elements which relate them together. Those elements are a sense of togetherness and aspiration. They are tied by a sense of togetherness and they are connected by the same aspiration: A good and happy family.  Without anyone of them, the family will loose some part of their emotion and ‘body’.  A family without a father or a mother or children is incomplete.  And if all of them do the same thing exactly or have exactly the same role all the time, the family will be dysfunctional.   They function because they are diverse.  The success of the family occurs when each of them can develop to the fullest. Together they form a family and the family makes them together. They are united by a special bond. In the context of a country, this special bond which Soekarno meant as nationality.  It is nationality that ties the people of one nation together as a family.

Based on the above illustration, we could view a unity as expressive of the sum total of all diversity contained within it.  The identity of a unity is therefore dependent and conditional upon its diversities.  At the same time the identity of the unity, its nature, is in turn a conditioning factor for each of its diversities and hence their identity.  Unity and diversity are interconnected, in principle and hence in practice. 

The obsession and the misconception of unity in diversity paradigm could be backfired, producing unproductive outcomes instead of productive ones. This paradigm is vulnerable to be manipulated for political gain or power gain because any differences, even though they are not harmful at all, could be suppressed for unity clause.  If a unity is imposed that does not have a relational aspect to its diversities, in other words, if loses its identity of itself in a relational context, and makes an abstraction of the diversities, then the harmony will break down, and the former unity will become dysfunctional.  Some experiences during the New Order regime have shown such reality.

Since unity is based on diversity and core elements, the route to build a solid unity is to promote diversity and strengthen core elements.  It is from diversity to unity, not the other way around.  Diversity not only acknowledges and upholds differences that is based on culture, ethnic, religion, language and other types of diversity but also promote understanding about others without falling into the trap of exclusiveness.

While differences could pose serious challenges to national consensus and unity, they could also bring opportunities.[8] Cultural, ethnic and language diversity provide the nation with rich opportunities to incorporate diverse perspectives, issues, and characteristics into the nation’s strength. The strength of a nation comes from the diversity of its people as much as from its unity.  Therefore, understanding differences is just as important as preserving unity.

However, in trying to understand diversity, we should be careful to distinguish between natural diversity and structural diversity. Natural diversity is the diversity induced by nature such as ethnicity, culture and language. Structural diversity is the diversity induced by economic, social and political development.  Failure to do so could lead to a less appreciation of diversity or worse, it could danger the unity.

Natural diversity is less problematic compared to structural diversity. The economic and social gaps among groups of people are salient characteristics of Indonesian society that could affect all racial, ethnic, cultural, and social-class groups.  Some of these gaps are due to a fundamental misconception that occurred in our economic development strategy during the New Order regime. The central planners forgot the fact that strong regional economies are the key to successful national development, not the other way around.  Not only did it create serious regional disparities but also caused some regions far left behind compared to the nation as a whole. 

According to data released by the Central Bureau of Statistics in 1998, the average per capita income of 19 provinces was 1.48 million rupiah, much lower compared to the national per capita income of 2.17 million rupiah.  Per capita income in Jakarta was ten-fold that of Eastern Southeast Nusa and nine-fold that of Southeast Sulawesi. 

During period of 1967-98, total approved domestic investment in five provinces was 12 trillion rupiah, much less compared to that of West Java that received 195 trillion rupiah. Foreign investment approvals in eight provinces were only $2.6 billion while, at the same period, West Java secured $64 billion. 

The other problem is the imbalanced regional distribution of population. Although the government has implemented transmigration policy aggressively during the last three decades, the percentage of population in Java only reduced by 1 %, from 60% of total population in 1980 to 59% in 2000.

Regional indicators of human basic needs such as access to health services, better education, clean water and sanitation are even more dismal.  In eight provinces, ratio of student to teacher at elementary level was still much higher compared to the national average of 23 students per teacher. Population per public health center in eight provinces was 360, too high compared to the national average of 274. 

Around 34 percent of households in 17 provinces do not have access to sanitation, while the national average is 24 percent.  On average, 30 percent of households in 12 provinces do not have access to clean water, too high compared to the national average of 12 percent. 

An interesting aspect is that, while some analysts suggest that growth and increasing income inequality usually go together, economic growth and income inequality in Indonesia behave differently.[9] Nevertheless, the number is rather minuscule. For fifteen years, 1984-1999, the top 20% of Indonesia people enjoyed about 41% of national income, and only about 9% of the national income was enjoyed by the lowest 20% of population (Table 2).

The structural differences pose serious challenges in realizing unity.  They can affect people attitudes and behaviors which then influence the view of people about racial, cultural and other types of diversity.  They can create cultural, racial and other types of diversity biases. Because the effects of these biases significantly hinder the opportunities for true relationship between people of different races, cultures, and economic backgrounds, the minimization of these differences must be the main goal of economic, social and political policy. 

Table 2.  Distribution of Income, 1999

Source: World Development Indicator, various years. The World Bank.

Challenge

The question now, what are the core elements that can tie Indonesians together as a family as have been dreamed of by the founding fathers? These core elements must be able to overcome not only natural diversity but also structural diversity.  Just as the existence of any individual must be respected, the dreams of individuals must also be cherished. As Victor Hugo wrote in Les Miserables, “There is nothing like dream to create the future.”   This brings us to the next section: Our Core Elements.

 Your comment

Back to top