Pancasila in the Era of Disruption

Are the values of Pancasila still relevant as a guiding star, or have they become obsolete?

Such a question deserves to be raised amid the development of a world that is seeing the intensity of technology disruption that breaks down the boundaries of space and time and invalidates various norms and establishments. It needs a clear mind as a guidance in life to perceive that every technological development is like Janus: it has positive and negative impacts.

The negative impact of technology disruption in the industrial era 4.0 is sharply articulated by Shoshana Zuboff in The Age of Surveillance Capitalism (2019).

In his view, the omnipresence of digital technology, artificial intelligence, big data, automation and virtual connectivity is the catalyst for the emergence of surveillance capitalism (SC). SC unilaterally claims human experience as raw material that can be freely transformed into behavioral data. Although some of the data is applied to product and service improvements, the rest is declared as a behavioral surplus which is poured into a manufacturing process called machine intelligence. In turn, these predictive products are traded in the “future behavior market”.

Like it or not, this will force humans to adapt in ways that were previously unimaginable.

With that, SC was born as a new form of power called instrumentalism that operates asymmetrically. SC knows everything about us, and their operation is designed not to be known to us. They accumulate new knowledge domains from us, but not to us. They predict our future for other gains, not ours.

The positive impact of technological developments was stated by Brett King and Richard Petty in Technosocialism (2021). They remind us that the vision of general welfare has long been a universal human dream. Communism in the Soviet Union stood on the promise of equality and prosperity for all. In fact, this system created a human catastrophe, with a few elites monopolizing power and wealth. Western European socialism came up with a softer version of communism, but it could not completely escape the problem of communism: the elites pulled the strings and public profits were never really evenly distributed.

As a result, the authors concluded: man may not be an "ideal machine" who will work to the best of his ability and happily share the harvest of his labor with others equally. So, they imagine, what if we depend on technology to fulfil the dream of public welfare? The 21st century is the most disruptive century that humans have ever experienced. The implications of new technology will change the most "sacred" ideologies concerning politics, economics and social construction. Like it or not, this will force humans to adapt in ways that were previously unimaginable.

Also read:

> Pancasila in Real Action

> Finding the Meaning of Pancasila Sanctity Day

With the new opportunities that technology enables, the authors warn of the need to reform capitalism and replace it with "techno-socialism": a future society in which most human work is automated and basic services such as housing, health and education are all affordable and available to all. In the next decade or two, he said, we will replace the world's energy systems with renewable systems.

Even today, we have experienced the early stages of techno-socialism, such as the availability of the internet and search engines (Google, DuckDuckGo, Waze applications and the like), in which democratic and inexpensive services are widely available.

The double face of the impact of the technology disruption reminds us that in the end, the man behind the weapon is the main determinant. As Gerd Leonhard shows in the film Change, machines are good at simulation, but not at the process of "becoming." Technology represents "how" to change, but not "why."

In a time when disruption becomes normal, everything that cannot be digitized has become even more important. Things that cannot be digitized such as creative power, imagination, intuition, emotion and ethics are increasingly demanding attention. Education must provide the capacity for humans to go beyond the reach of technology and data, by providing human insight and wisdom. The new generation must master new ways of working with the ability to embrace technology, not turn themselves into machines. With technology, in the future children must be able to find a "home", not be plunged into "exile".

Indonesian Challenge

With technology disruption and the wave of globalization which is increasingly broad in scope, in its penetration and its instant speed, every country is not only facing the potential for an explosion of plurality from within, but also from outside. The Indonesian nation as a pluralistic society is increasingly experiencing the complexity of intercultural and multicultural relations. The problem is, no citizen, even as an equal legal subject and a global netizen, can stand without an identity. Identity in the context of plurality is faced with two choices.

First, to make my identity exist, other identities must be marginalized, giving birth to a kind of right-wing totalitarianism (fascism), which is now spreading to various corners of the earth. However, if that is the choice, a pluralistic Indonesia will become a zone of endless conflict. And as Mahatma Gandhi said, "If an eye is for an eye, the world will experience darkness."

Second, with our eyes open we recognize diversity as a social fact, and for the existence of an identity, we must be able to coexist peacefully with others. If this is the choice, we must be able to develop a “common ground”, which can unite diversity into a beautiful rainbow. In developing the meeting point, it is necessary to cultivate civic nationalism by strengthening social capital through the expansion of networks of connectivity and inclusivity. Connectivity networks are spaces of encounter and interaction, spaces of engagement and cooperation that can make strangers familiar, prejudices turn into acquaintances that grow love. Inclusiveness is equal access to education, health, employment, capital and social privileges that can overcome jealousy. Through strengthening connectivity and inclusiveness, mutual trust can be built.

Also read:

> Promoting Pancasila

> The Paralyzed Pancasila Ideology

To strengthen the network of connectivity and inclusivity, thin fibers of consensual values are needed that can unite diversity into the bonds of moral community. In short, national unity requires agreement on the “core values” of public morals crystallized in Pancasila. In Pancasila, the core values that make up public morals are distilled from universal values (ethical-spiritual) of religions, to then be combined with ideas (values) from outside of religion but not contradictory, even in line with the ethical values of religions.

The capacity of Pancasila to reconcile the various sources of values demonstrates the ability of the Pancasila formulators to see the common ground of differences. That behind the diversity and complexity of reality (religion, philosophy, wisdom), principles of simplicity can be found. The basic constructors of the state from various identity backgrounds are able to see the common ground of all diversity by anchoring it to the simplicity of the similarity of human nature. That whatever the origin of their identity, humans have the same nature as both physical and spiritual beings, individual and social beings, universal and particular creatures.

Relevance of Pancasila

From the three paradoxical forms of human nature, five tenets of public morals are drawn. The first tenet believes in human nature as a spiritual being, a special embodiment of the universe as a crystallization of divine love. Human existence is believed to be a being created by the love of the Creator as a first being. Although a special embodiment of the universe, humans are still part of the universe, which with its privilege does not bring harm (fasad), but brings harmony (maslahat/benefits) in the relationship between humanity and nature.

The second tenet believes in human nature as a universal being who must develop the spirit of universal human brotherhood. Humans cannot stand alone, isolated from other existences. In order to exist together with others, humans cannot help but exist-together-with-love, by developing a just and civilized sense of humanity.

The third tenet believes in human nature as a particular being who lives in a specific reality of space and time. To exist together in the same nation-state, humans as physical and social beings need a concrete living space and social life in the reality of pluralism. A way to grow compassion amid a diversity of people who inhabit the same homeland as a shared geopolitics is by developing a sense of nationality.

The fourth tenet believes in human nature as social beings who in making decisions regarding common problems use the spirit of love. The main measure of love is mutual respect. The way of respect is by seeing others as a sovereign subject, not an object of manipulation, exploitation and exclusion. This is what is called democracy in the truest sense.

The fifth tenet believes in human nature as physical beings who need shelter, clothing, food and various other material needs. The special embodiment of humanity through loving fellow humans by sharing physical needs fairly is called social justice (Driyarkara, 2006).

By anchoring all differences in the basic essence of human nature, Pancasila becomes a resilient ideology that can remain relevant in the midst of all waves of change. Unlike the dominant ideologies that we know so far, such as capitalism and communism, which base the source of social tension on economic relations alone, Pancasila has a much wider range of vision. The five tenets of Pancasila anticipate the possibility of social conflict from five forms of social relations (religious relations, international relations, inter-ethnic relations (between groups), political-party relations, economic relations).

It seems that the broad ideological vision of Pancasila is more adequate in explaining the various social conflicts that are developing at the global level today. The emergence of various "new social movements" in industrialized European countries and the United States, such as green (environmental) movements, feminist movements and various other identity-based social movements, shows that the themes and ideological commitments have shifted from "old social” based on industrial relations, such as labor movements. The rise of the right wing and populism in various countries has also exposed the complexity of the sources of social tension that cannot be simplified solely on the basis of economic relations.

Also read:

> Intelligence Politics

In anticipating the possibility of strengthening fundamentalism and terrorism in the name of religion, the first tenet emphasizes socio-religious principles. Namely, the principle of generous religiosity (socius); who are “civilized”, compassionate and tolerant. In anticipating the destructive impact of globalization and localization, in the form of populism, homogenization and identity exclusivism, the principle of "socio-nationalism" contained in the second and third tenets of Pancasila has provided an accurate answer.

Socio-nationalism is a generous national principle; compassionate and airy; a national spirit that upholds humanity inwardly and outwardly.

In anticipating tyranny and injustice in politics and the economy, the principle of “socio-democracy” provides a reliable solution. Socio-democracy is a benevolent democracy; social justice-oriented democracy, which not only requires participation and emancipation in the political field, but also participation and emancipation in the economic field. In politics, the democracy that is being developed is a consensus-deliberative democracy that is inclusive. In the economy, the state must actively seek social justice, in order to overcome and balance the inequalities that occur in the market, by maintaining a healthy competition climate, defending the weak and investing in public goods that concern the lives of many people.

The only problem is how to bring the Pancasila ideals closer to reality. The efficacy of Pancasila as an ideology demands that it be a "working ideology" in development praxis. In other words, the ideology of Pancasila must become a paradigmatic framework for national development in the realm of human values and quality, in the realm of socio-political institutional governance and government policies, a just and prosperous economic system of welfare; which is supported by the depth of penetration of the Pancasila ideological praxis, which touches the dimensions of belief, knowledge and action.

Our ability to cultivate Pancasila in the three areas of development and the three dimensions of ideological penetration determines the sanctity of Pancasila in real life.

KOMPAS/WAWAN H PRABOWO

Yudi Latif

Yudi Latif, Member of the Indonesian Academy of Sciences

This article was translated by Kurniawan Siswo.