Reclaiming Pancasila

Opinion


Reclaiming
Pancasila
 Trisno
S.
Sutanto
 
 LAST
month,
I
was
invited
to
attend
a
meeting
at
Padepokan
Wulan
Tumanggal,
 Tegal,
not
far
from
Mountain
Slamet.
The
invitation
made
me
curious,
because
it
 was
stated
there
that
I
was
invited
to
celebrate
“Pancasila
day”
with
hundreds
of
 kelompok
penghayat
kepercayaan,
i.e.,
those
who
still
practice
their
local
beliefs.
 For
me,
personally,
that
invitation
was
like
an
unexpected
opportunity
to
 journey
back
into
the
past
times.
I
was
grown
up
in
that
city,
and
the
struggle
of
 kelompok
penghayat
became
my
focus
of
attention
recently.
But
Pancasila?
Who
 still
want
to
talk
about
that
ideology
now?
 The
word
itself
already
became
stigmatized
as
part
of
Soeharto’s
 authoritarian
regime.
During
that
time,
Pancasila
was
used—cleverly,
and
I
must
 say,
successfully—by
Soeharto
as
the
most
powerful
“ideological
weapon”,
 always
ready
to
silence
those
who
opposed
him.
Also,
almost
every
day,
in
every
 occasion,
the
word
Pancasila
was
used
by
the
New
Order
bureaucrats
that
 reminds
me
about
the
Orwellian
“newspeak”.
 But
only
a
decade
after
the
so‐called
Reformasi,
after
inter
communal
 tensions
or
even
conflicts
colored
heavily
by
religious
affiliations,
there
was
 already
an
urgent
need
to
look
back
into
the
discourse
of
Pancasila.
Since
the
 famous
Soekarno’s
speech,
on
June
1,
1945,
in
which
he
proposed
the
five
 guiding
principles
as
the
basis
of
the
new
state,
Pancasila
becomes
the
best
 possible
mean
to
manage
the
multicultural
society
like
Indonesia.

 Pancasila
was
like
a
gentlemen
agreement
to
build
the
state
of
Indonesia
 for
everyone,
without
any
consideration
of
colors,
ethnicity,
religious
affiliations,
 etc.
In
Pancasila
the
differences
were
accepted
and
acknowledged,
but
always
in
 the
process
of
finding
and
strengthening
the
unity
of
this
multicultural
nation‐ state.
 Thus,
for
example,
on
the
relation
between
the
State
and
Religion,
 Pancasila
offered
the
third
way:
neither
radical
secularization,
nor
complete
 subordination,
but
a
middle
course,
a
critical
partnership
between
religious
 institutions
and
the
state.
These
ideals,
of
course,
are
difficult
to
maintain.
And
 the
experience
during
Soeharto’s
regime
proved
how
difficult
to
maintain
the
 balance.
 
But
however
painful
those
experiences
are,
when
the
social
tensions
and
 conflicts
touched
the
deepest
chord
of
our
nation‐state,
i.e.,
the
existence
of
our
 multicultural
society,
there
was
an
urgent
need
to
revisit
and
reclaim
the


discourses
of
Pancasila.
It
was
in
Tegal,
among
hundreds
of
people
from
different
 parts
of
Indonesia,
I
could
feel
again
the
vitality
of
that
discourse.
 I
was
stunned
not
only
by
the
magnitude,
and
the
seriousness
those
who
 were
attended,
in
celebrating
“Pancasila
day”,
but
also
by
the
way
they
talked
 about
Pancasila.
Let
me
elaborate
this
point
more
in
details.
 First
of
all,
even
though
the
event
was
attended
almost
by
700
people
 from
different
parts
of
this
country,
they
managed
to
do
it
by
themselves,
 without
any
support
or
funds
from
the
government.
It
was
really
a
celebration
by
 the
people
and
for
the
people.
They
want
to
reclaim
Pancasila
for
themselves— even
when
bureaucracy,
political
parties,
or
intellectuals
are
reluctant
to
talk
 about
Pancasila.
 I
believe
that
this
process
of
reclaiming
Pancasila
will
have
greater
 significance
if
we
consider,
secondly,
that
for
kelompok
penghayat
kepercayaan
 Pancasila
is
the
only
way
to
assert
their
identities.
Since
the
beginning
of
1960s,
 when
the
Department
of
Religious
Affairs
formulated
the
definition
of
“religion”
 to
counter
the
burgeoning
“mystical
sects”
at
that
time,
those
who
still
maintain
 their
local
beliefs
and
practices
were
considered
as
“belum
beragama”,
not
yet
 professed
any
religion.
 A
classic
study
by
Jane
Monnig
Atkinson
(1987)
showed
the
significance
 of
that
term.
If
you
are
considered
as
“belum
beragama”,
to
put
it
bluntly,
it
 means
that
you
are
not
professing
yet
any
“officially
recognized
religions
by
the
 State”.
Of
course,
this
politics
of
agama
have
fundamental
consequences
for
their
 civil
rights,
like
identity
card,
marriages,
school
for
their
children,
etc.
And
the
 state
only
put
“kepercayaan”
(beliefs)
under
Department
of
Tourism
and
Film,
in
 order
to
regulate
them!
 The
Reformasi
gave
them
window
of
opportunity
not
only
to
assert
their
 identities,
but
also
to
reclaim
their
fundamental
civil
rights.
With
the
new
law
 number
23/2006
that
regulates
the
administration
of
population
a
new
 breakthrough
was
achieved.
Now
those
who
still
profess
and
practices
local
 beliefs,
i.e.,
“whose
religions
are
not
yet
recognized
by
the
State”,
if
they
want,
 they
do
not
have
to
fill
the
religion
column
in
their
ID
cards.
They
can
just
leave
it
 blank.
What
an
opportunity!
 During
the
celebration
and
discussion
in
Tegal,
many
people
showed
up
 and
told
me
their
testimonies.
They
come
to
the
local
government
and
ask
them
 to
rid
off
any
religious
affiliations—the
six
State‐recognized
religions,
i.e.,
Islam,
 Protestant,
Catholics,
Hinduism,
Buddhism,
and
Confucianism—that
was
printed
 before
in
their
ID
cards.

 “We
want
to
tell
them
that
now
we
are
coming
back
to
our
roots,”
an
 activist
from
Malang,
East
Java,
told
me
the
reason.
In
his
area
alone,
thousands
 of
people
already
do
that.


His
words
really
astonished
me.
I
began
to
realize
that
something’s
big
 and
important
are
happening
in
our
country
that
will
change
the
demographic
 constellation
of
religions
in
the
future.

 Pancasila
was
reclaimed
by
hundreds
of
thousand,
or
even
millions
 people
like
him,
and
used
it
in
their
struggle
for
their
fundamental
rights
as
 citizens
in
this
country.
It
was
really
a
liberating
experience
for
me
to
learn
again
 the
discourse
of
Pancasila,
not
as
a
powerful
ideological
weapon
in
the
hands
of
 authoritarian
regime,
but
as
a
deep‐rooted
conviction
that
makes
Indonesian
 multicultural
society
still
possible.
 
 Jakarta,
June
12,
2009
 Published
in
The
Jakarta
Globe,
June
30,
2009
 
 The
writer

is
 a
student
at
Driyarkara
School
of
 Philosophy
and
works
in
MADIA,
a
society
 for
interfaith
dialogue