Reflecting on 75 Years of Pancasila
The war on Covid-19, which has been going on since the beginning of this year, should be used to reflect on the journey of our state’s foundation, Pancasila.
Indonesia\'s national symbol, Garuda Pancasila in the Kebhinekaan Park at the East Jakarta floodgate in Duren Sawit, East Jakarta, Saturday (07/07/2018). The introduction and reaffirmation of the values of Pancasila and diversity are now displayed in public spaces.
The war on Covid-19, which has been going on since the beginning of this year, should be used to reflect on the journey of our state’s foundation, Pancasila.
This year on 1 June, Pancasila is precisely 75 years old. Since it was ratified as the foundational blueprint for the Republic of Indonesia, Pancasila has always been the backstop for resolving any national crisis.
In this context of raising awareness of the importance of Pancasila, we need to reflect on the noble message of national unity that is the specific character of Pancasila and which distinguishes it from other state ideologies in the world. Although born at the peak of the wave of nationalism in Asia, it appears that Pancasila chose its own way to emerge as a meeting point of all anti-colonial ideologies of that period: Marxism, ethnic nationalism, and religion.
Also read : Maintaining Civil Liberty
The leaders of the anti-colonial movement in the Dutch East Indies were clearly influenced by modern humanistic philosophy, which shaped their vision of the state. However, different from world ideologies such as socialism, liberalism, fascism, and fundamentalism, Pancasila is open, tolerant, and presents itself as a meeting point of all political and state ideals. It is not wrong to say that if there were an ideology born of a strong will to bridge all political ideologies while guaranteeing the right to live under a system of belief derived from a nation’s diversity, that ideology is Pancasila.
Meeting point
The story of the development of Pancasila is incomplete without referring to the dynamic history of the Preparatory Body for Indonesian Independence (BPUPKI). The architect of Pancasila was certainly Soekarno. He was the only figure who articulated a clear and firm vision of “an imagined community” for a new country, to borrow from Benedict Anderson (1991). And as Letters from Ende (1958) notes, Pancasila was the defining point of Soekarno\'s internal struggle over the key to building unity for the nation he dreamed of.
As an institution, the BPUPKI is too important to be put aside. Not only because this institution became the embryo of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia (NKRI), but also because of the fact that it established structured behavior and dynamics in almost all organizations of the anti-colonial movement. Many post-independence political and military events – even those today – were shaped by the political legacy of this brief period of Japanese rule. Records of the Japanese imperial administration refer to the BPUPKI as Dokuritsu Jumbi Chosakai, a commission that was a forum for anti-colonial leaders to discuss the preparations for independence.
Also read : Protect Healthy Democracy
Japan tried to provide the broadest possible representation of political leaders, including prominent figures, religious leaders and minority groups with a strong anti-colonial track record. According to
Anderson (1979), it seems that due to this caution, Japan appointed only experienced, aged, and conservative figures to the BPUPKI. There were no figures who represented communism. Those who supported the ideology of an Islamic state, like M. Natsir, were also absent. Youth representatives from the anti-Japanese Syahrir group were also excluded.
What was important was that a commission tasked with preparing for independence was established not just in Indonesia, and the Japanese imperial administration established similar commissions in almost all territories it had occupied: Korea, Vietnam, Myanmar, Malaysia and China (Taipei). The European reoccupation and the threat of war crime accusations were the reasons for Japan to gather anti-colonial figures. Once World War II was over, it is these commissions that gave birth to the new countries in Asia.
Even though Pancasila was finalized quickly, this did not prevent it from capturing the spirit of plurality and the vision of building a civic brotherhood.
In this regard, the BPUPKI was a representative institution of the political forces of the time that was formed with the aim of discussing the matters needed to establish an independent state. The resulting agreements would be a social contract to be the basis for designing state institutions. As such, Pancasila should be accepted not as a coherent ideology of humanity like liberalism or socialism, but as a blueprint for a new constitutional state: a state foundation that is open to religion, tolerates cultural differences, and is a meeting point for plurality framed in civic ties.
Therefore, even though Pancasila was finalized quickly, this did not prevent it from capturing the spirit of plurality and the vision of building a civic brotherhood. The formulation of Pancasila changed dramatically in 1945 between 1 June (Soekarno\'s speech), 22 June (Jakarta Charter), and 18 Aug. (Preamble to the Constitution). However, the changes that were made were not zero-sum politics, where each group tried to outdo the others. It precisely reflected the continuing the spirit and strong commitment of the BPUPKI members to reach a basic agreement on a state that combined divinity/religion with humanity/civilization.
Also read : Alarming Signs in Law and Security
None of the principles written in classical Malay used exclusive or radical expressions. On the contrary, all principles were open-minded (humble) and no principles were, in the truest sense, religiously framed, culturally identifiable, or referred to specific ideologies. If we look at the formulation of Pancasila in the Preamble to the 1945 Constitution, it is clear that its only radical phrase is "colonialism on earth must be abolished". Moreover, the Preamble reflects moderate ideals for the creation of a civilized state that "upholds humanity and justice".
Political solution
The principle of "Indonesian Unity" became the anchor of all principles that bound the new state, facing post-WWII challenges, as a unified territory as a basis for state and national identity. For the BPUPKI, Dutch reoccupation was a certainty. And measures at compromise between the disputing factions of the time (especially with regard to Pancasila as religious identity) seemed overshadowed by the simple hope that the NKRI would survive in the face of two threats: 1) the imminent return of the Dutch, and 2) a takeover by radicals that began to emerge once news of Japan\'s defeat spread.
The problem was, the agreements that were made in such a short time made it seem that Pancasila left unaddressed a number of unresolved issues for Indonesia. The "neutral identity" inherent in the open-ended formulation at least left room for the emerging ideological groups to continue with their agendas. Decades have passed, yet the issue of the relationship between religion and the state is still restrictive for some people and is a bone of contention that appears to be resolved constitutionally.
This fact is worrying, especially when we point a lens at how efforts to undermine the Pancasila agreements at the constitutional level always retains the potential for conflict and the risk of a radical movement to emerge. In addition to holding this nation hostage in ideological battles, such efforts also undermine our commitment to capture the civic message of Pancasila. Moreover, the present condition of state politics has shown an opposite development: the unfinished ideological issue has been resolved in the political realm, and not in terms of the state ideology or the Constitution. The social, political and economic dynamics of of the post-independence government can be seen as an arena for resolving "unfinished business".
“Political solution” here refers to the earnest efforts of the state and civil society to find alternatives to the impasse by forming political and governmental institutions to accommodate the ideological interests of the disputing parties. The modern state, as Velarie Bunce (1999) states in Subversive Institutions: The Design and the Destruction of Socialism and the State, varies in terms of its ability to penetrate society and implement policies according to its ideological projects. Some countries are able to demonstrate the logistical methods needed to form, regulate, and educate citizens in social relations, but many countries do this through coercion and force for similar policies.
In this perspective, compared to other countries in Asia, Indonesia with its open Pancasila has advantages in its ability to transform society in resolving conflicts between religion and the state ideology. On the one hand, government regimes periodically take heed of religious aspirations and incorporate them into state institutions. From the formation of the Religious Affairs Ministry in 1946 and the expansion of religious institutions beneath it, to the establishment of the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) and other religious assemblies, and to the emergence of nuanced religious bylaws in Aceh, all have transformed the religion-versus-state dispute into a new institutional design for the NKRI
Residents pass near the Garuda Pancasila bird mural as a national symbol on Jalan Rambutan, Larangan, Tangerang City, Banten, Monday (6/1/2020). Commemoration of the birth of Pancasila every June 1 refers to the history of the emergence of Pancasila by Soekarno, the First President of the Republic of Indonesia.
On the other hand, clerics also have been diligently seeking a formula for renewing religious ideas so they are in line with the civilizational ideals of Pancasila. Beginning with the Nucholish Madjid Renewal Movement in the 1970s, followed by the initiative of leaders of Islamic and other religious organizations to accept Pancasila in the 1980s, educational reform of Islamic institutions, interreligious dialogue, and plural religious communities, all have developed institutional convergence between religion and Pancasila. These two dynamic currents between countries vis-a-vis society give direction to Indonesia\'s institutional design, in which elements of the Jakarta Charter are increasingly incorporated into the NKRI without amending the Constitution.
The open and inclusive nature of Pancasila has eventually come to dominate the national platform. All ideologies have merged complementarily to form an institutional and inherent system of government. In contrast, radical movements have become increasingly marginalized as a basis of conflict resolution in the NKRI: from the earliest PKI Madiun (1948) and Jakarta (1965), to the DI/TII (1953), jihadist and HTI networks (2000s), RMS separatists and PRRI/Permesta (1957), and to GAM (1979), NKRI nationalism can be described simply as religious nationalism that aspires to achieve prosperity, justice, and public society.
The problem of institutionalizing ideology has haunted radicals everywhere, who have resorted to violence due to the closure of alternatives on all fronts. Theda Skocpol, in his monumental work, States and Social Revolutions (1981), reminds us that revolutionary ideologies often fail, even miserably, when forced to institutionalize their revolutionary agenda as state politics. The closed nature of these ideologies makes it difficult for revolutionary leaders to find room to negotiate to resolve internal
conflicts, especially after the revolution is won. The "secular" battle among classes or among anthropologists, Skocpol says, is finally resolved at the political level, not the constitutional or cultural levels. It is construction and destruction in the middle layer of state institutions that seal fundamental ideological-societal changes during the stabilization of a revolutionary order.
Ali Munhanif
In comparing the processes in which national ideologies were institutionalized in Asia, history has proved that only Pancasila was able to overcome internal crisis and conflict since the independence of post-colonial countries in the 1940s to the present. Along with the escalating Cold War, the Korean Peninsula broke in two: the Republic of Korea in the south and the Democratic People\'s Republic of Korea in the north. Myanmar became a hostage of religious-state radicalization and amended its constitution in 2008. Malaysia lost Singapore in 1963 and had to overcome racial tensions. China, through a bloody process, formed a new and separate country from Taiwan after communist revolutionaries took control of Beijing in 1949. Upon Pancasila, Indonesia has maintained its integrity for 75 years, and will hopefully stay united forever.
Ali Munhanif, Political Science Professor and Dean, Social and Political Sciences Faculty (FISIP) at Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University, Jakarta.
