A number of societal elements, including indigenous people, members of civil society organizations, and police and military officers gathered at a national rally on the West Java Police headquarters in Bandung, West Java, on Tuesday (23/5/2017). Rally participants pledged to safeguard Pancasila and the nation’s diversity to maintain the unity of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia.
JAKARTA, KOMPAS — Pancasila as the national ideology and guide has not been internalized as the ethos of Indonesia. Pancasila usually only enters public discourse when there is a national problem, when in fact it should actually be the “breath” and the rational basis for every policy.
Since the start of reformation, Pancasila is rarely talked about in the public sphere, and it is also the case in the legislature or in the public policy decision-making process. Not only is it brought up merely as a “recipe” for the cure to several of the country’s problems, Pancasila is also usually only mentioned in the public setting on national days such as Pancasila Day on June 1.
As a result, there is shallow internalization of Pancasila in the lives of the people of the nation. Many of the elite politicians and government officials do not promote and implement the Pancasila values in governance. In the end, the general public no longer has any examples.
Research carried out by the Assessment Body of the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR) for example, showed that more than 50 percent of the laws made since reformation have not involved or referred to the values of Pancasila in its deliberations, when Pancasila should in fact be the source for every state law in Indonesia.
“Pancasila comes up in the public space when there is a negative reality. Pancasila is seen more as a “fixer” of the problems that surfaces, and not as an ideology and attitude in life as a nation,” said philosophy lecturer at Driyarkara School of Philosophy, F Budi Hardiman, on Sunday (28/5).
According to Budi, Indonesia in this era can learn from the positives and negatives of the Pancasila discourse in the New Order era. Back then, there was a commitment to accommodate Pancasila in various policies. The Pancasila discourse was the rationale behind every policy. The New Order had also established a special institution to promote Pancasila as the national paradigm.
However, in the New Order era, negative examples can be pointed out. Because the government’s policies are considered to be in line with Pancasila, those that disagree with the government’s policies are regarded as anti-Pancasila.
This move would then come with threats. Budi believes that this is what then triggers the resistance of certain parties against the Pancasila discourse after reformation.
In the context of law-making, the MPR Assessment Body chairman Bambang Sadono said that after reformation, there was an impression that the mention of Pancasila in laws was avoided. This was despite the fact that Law No. 12/2011 on the Formation of Legislation has included an article which states that Pancasila must be the source of every state law. However, the juridical footing is often seen as not being a sufficiently strong and binding legal ground to be implemented in the deliberation process of a new law.
Bambang said Pancasila was currently only used as a charm or a magical object. “It is as though if we have the Pancasila in our pocket, everything will be resolved. But how is the implementation? We are too lazy to make the Pancasila clearer and act on the principles of Pancasila in our daily lives and in our life as a people of a nation,” he said.
Recently, the MPR has held meetings to discuss about the concrete implementation of Pancasila, especially in the making of laws. One of the suggestions that came up, Bambang said, was making a binding clause in the 1945 constitution. The result of the amendment will be that Pancasila must be used as a legal footing and a basic reference in the making of laws or regulations.
“If Law No. 12/2011 does not have a strong enough legal ground, we will reinforce it through the 1945 constitution. There was a suggestion that an articles is made which would regulate on the matter of national principle and its implementation. Because, to be honest, Pancasila is considered not binding enough for the matter of lawmaking,” Bambang said.
Example
According to Diasma Sandi Swandaru, Pancasila Study Center researcher at Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta, there are at least two things that make the elites reluctant to bring up the Pancasila discourse in public space. First, because there is a demand on them as members of the government, in the context of a Pancasila-based country, to dedicate themselves to the interest of the country, and they also automatically carry the moral demand of having to behave well. “By talking about Pancasila in their line of work, they would automatically be burdened with a huge responsibility. They do not want that,” he said.
Second, the government underestimates the importance of Pancasila. They feel that they already understand it and do not feel the need to look into it in more depth or talk about it.
This is ironic given that a number of cases like the arrest of a Supreme Audit Agency (BPK) official and a Village, Disadvantaged Regions and Transmigration Ministry official in an alleged corruption case is an example of the shallow internalization of Pancasila values in governance.
Three issues
In the context of Pancasila and governance, Indonesia is facing serious issues in three principles of Pancasila, which are: the first principle, belief in one Supreme God; the third principle, unity of Indonesia; and the fifth principle, social justice for all Indonesian people. According to Indonesia Science Academy member Yudi Latif, are crucial. “The pillars of the Pancasila is in these three principles. In these three aspects, we are experiencing serious problems in implementing Pancasila,” Yudi said.
The first principle, he said, should develop a belief in God, which means that whatever the religion and belief held by a person, they must show love, good behavior and manners and can invite people to leave narrow-mindedness and towards goodness.
Meanwhile, in the third pillar a cultural strategy needs to be developed to overcome the problem of social segregation which is gaining in strength. In the fifth principle, there is a problem of economic injustice that must be resolved through the presence of the state.
“The issue of disunity and injustice is the effect of long-term poor governance of the country. But the spirit should not be of blaming regimes, but rather of evaluating mistakes,” Yudi said.
Presidential Advisory Council member Sidarto Danusubroto stressed that it was time to revive Pancasila. Regarding this matter, the government is considering reviving institutions like the Pancasila Study and the Implementation of Guidelines for Installing and Applying Pancasila (BP7), which was used in the New Order to enforce Pancasila. However, this enforcement will not be done in the form of doctrine as used by the New Order government, but would use more of an ideological approach.
