The nationalism commonly found today is different from the one that arose in Indonesia’s struggle for independence. These days, nationalism tends to emerge as a political discourse produced for a concrete use.
By
·3 minutes read
Kompas/Totok Wijayanto
A crowded area in Muara Angke, Penjaringan, Jakarta, on Saturday (3/2). Based on Central Statistics Agency data, from the total 26.58 million poor people in Indonesia, about 10.27 million live in urban areas.
The reemergence of nationalist discourse in many countries, after a general norm of globalization for several decades, has led to a number of problems.
In a discussion with Kompas daily and the University of Melbourne’s Asia Institute in February, an opinion was formed that nationalism had reemerged due to a widespread feeling among communities all over the world of being left behind by globalization.
Globalization with its liberal economy credo has produced wealth through the trade of goods and services as well as flows of money that transcend state borders. On the other hand, admittedly, globalization has also led to a widening prosperity gap. A handful of people has benefited tremendously from economic liberalization. The rest of the global community has not been able to enjoy as much benefit as these few.
Economic liberalization has pushed for the privatization of various public services and the eradication of state subsidies, including in transportation, clean water provision, education and health.
In Indonesia, this all began when the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank required structural adjustment as part of an aid agreement from the two global finance institutions when Indonesia’s economy took a freefall in 1998.
The prosperity gap, coupled with global economic uncertainty and turmoil, led to widespread worries among the middle class. In such a situation, the urge to find a group based on a certain sameness emerges.
Nationalism is then embraced due to its ability to provide this feeling of sameness, despite its tendency to blur the various differences and aspirations that may exist in a group. Such a form of nationalism can seem to ignore individual rights and the voices of the poor and the marginalized.
The nationalism commonly found today is different from the one that arose in Indonesia’s struggle for independence. These days, nationalism tends to emerge as a political discourse produced for a concrete use. This has been apparent at least since the 2014 legislative and presidential elections in the form of nationalist-nationalist and nationalist-religious groups.
We see how political elites espoused words, jargon and symbols of nationalism just to test the public reaction. These same political elites use nationalistic and religious symbols alternately.
Ahead of the simultaneous regional elections on June 27, 2018, there have yet to be signs that local political elites are using nationalist sentiment to gain votes. However, many have predicted that such sentiment will be used widely during the 2019 presidential election.
Seeing how issues of nationalism can blur internal differences and sideline individual rights and the marginalized, we urge political elites to manage these issues not only to grab votes.
The goal of a general election is to preserve democracy in order to make our society more fair and prosperous. Using issues of nationalism just to grab power will certainly not help.
