Democracy

Economy

Education

Development

Global Issues

Research

06/05/2005.

Sixty years after the Indonesia’s independence in 1945, the country is still being confronted with continuous challenge of both unity and diversity. And notwithstanding the nation’s motto “Unity in diversity”, discriminations still exist and seem to be growing. Progress toward mutual respect and unity has been painfully slow and marked with setbacks, especially after the 1997 crisis. The resurgence of divisive attitudes, particularly on the religious basis, as well as the deepening of majorities vis a vis minorities have created a greater uncertainty of the nation’s future unity. In college campuses, which are supposed to be a vibrant source of diversity, students tend to convene themselves on the basis of religions. In the government sector, it is a general knowledge that the recruitment process of public officials has been heavily biased on religious background of the candidates. In politics, religion has been the basis for separating one from another. To ignore the problem is to expose the country to physical, moral and spiritual danger.

Discrimination is the most challenging issue confronting Indonesia. A nation which is built upon the blood of her people from all tribes and all religious backgrounds cannot continue to harbor prejudice against any racial, ethnic group or religious backgrounds without betraying itself. Discrimination is an affront to human dignity, a cause of hatred and division, disease that devastates society.

Our founding fathers fought for our freedoms. They fought for equality, and they set up the basis for the future generations to follow by establishing the country’s foundation: the unity of Indonesia. They also declared, through the nation’s constitution, that “the State of Indonesia shall be a unitary state…”. We try to show ourselves as united, diverse and equal. Yet, we lack enthusiasm and willingness. And we are most certainly not united.

To unite or not to unite is the question that our people and our leaders will have to ask of themselves. In the context of a diverse nation such as ours, this vexed question is better put as whether we are capable of uniting or living with anyone. Are our habits too offensive so as to cause any potential partners to eschew the notion of a union with us? Can we really realize a united nation while keeping our citizen’s diverse? Discrimination is the reason we cannot have diversity and unity.

Merriam-Webster dictionary defines discrimination as the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually. The main word in this definition is the word “categorical.” A category implies differences. Indeed, difference is a fact. We all look different. We are very diverse. Everyone has their own way of being themselves—and this is what makes the world diverse. No one is exactly like his or her best friend, neighbor, spouse, or even one of his or her parental units. Repress our identity, we take away our freedoms and we lose our individuality.  How can we make everyone becomes the same?  Clearly, it is virtually impossible.

Moreover, we have difficulties in realizing unity because certain groups of people like to stick with their “own kind.” It’s human nature to assemble with our own kind. Lions don’t hang around with frogs. We are grouping together with others who resemble us in ideology or family backgrounds. Why should we even bother with encouraging unity when all we need is our “brothers” and “sisters”?

Discrimination may never end. Therein lies our problem with unity. So what should we do as a nation?

Letting discrimination cultivate and flourish is essentially ending the nation’s future. Discrimination must be minimized to such extend that it no longer poses problems to society and nation. But, how?  The answer lies in the nature of diversity itself. We are strong because we are diverse. Diversity implies richness. People who are always hanging around with individuals similar to them will not take the advantage offered by diversity. Any entity or individual can hardly survive without diversity. In a simple example, we need diversities in the workplace. We need people with different skills. Every individual does not have to do everything needed for survival. We do not have to spend time learning all the skills we need in our lives. So we do not have to be a teacher, carpenter, tailor, and a medical doctor simultaneously. We have limited resources such as time, energy and financial supports. These limitations compel us to specialize in certain jobs and others specialize in different jobs. The result is a highly interdependent organization in which key tasks are performed by individuals who are specially adapted and equipped to do them. This is called specialization or division of labor. We also find specialization within our bodies, within our social systems, and between nations.

Take another example from engineering. Bricks alone cannot build a solid wall, building or house. However, combined with cement and steel, they can make a house or a bridge or some other useful structure. Or imagine a soccer team. A good and winning sport team is a solid combination of defending and attacking players. It is diversity in skills and nature.

Diversity must be cherished and our schools must become a source of hope for tolerance for diversity not a source of inspiration for intolerance. In higher learning institutions, guidance needs to be given to college student leaders on how to handle religious differences. Recruitments of public officials must be based on capabilities rather than the belief of the candidates. We need reliable and solid political parties that have inclusive rather than exclusive platforms. The lesson is certainly clear: A good and strong nation can only be built if all diverse elements in the nation—whether by religious, ethnic or racial background, are willing to associate, assemble and cooperate with one another for the good of the country.  

 Your comment

Back to top