Nationalism and Democracy

"A responsible democracy is vital to the healthy development of the state and society. On the other hand, if it is neglected, it will be fatal for the nation-state.” (Bung Hatta Answers, 179)

Such is the response of founding father Mohammad Hatta, or Bung Hatta, regarding the sociopolitical landscape, in which he also pointed out that irresponsible democracy would have a large impact. Democracy can walk hand-in-hand with nationalism on the path of managing state affairs, even if the two are not always connected.

Democracy can fail when, for instance, democratically elected leaders thirst for more power and manipulate the Constitution to retain power (Levitsky & Ziblattz, 2018). In the nation-building stage, nationalism comes first – not democracy – and is always about a shared fate. It is always about the drive to unite as a nation.

Democracy as choice

Countries like Singapore and China are sovereign, both politically and economically, but have no place for democracy in managing the state. The strong winds of change that toppled authoritarian powers in Eastern Europe three decades ago did not arrive in the two countries. Perhaps democracy is not compatible with Chinese traditions. However, this should not have been the case in Singapore, which looked to the West as a model in building its state and society.

Different from democracy, nationalism will last forever once it is established and manifested in a state. No matter where we go, we are never asked “Is your country democratic?”, but instead “Where are you from?” or “What is your nationality?” Our ethnicity and religion are never among the first questions people ask us.

However, nationalism does not form overnight. At some point, most nationalist figures will protest professional discrimination (jobs that do not match an employee’s educational background) and wages (Kahin, 1952). In the beginning, the dreams among the academia were elitist and Java-centric, and a long way from the dream of independence, since independence movements were prohibited at the time. However, this opened a path to national awakening. An education system that combined a Western curriculum and local traditions was established. The Muhammadiyah and the Taman Siswa pioneered the national education system.

The desire among the oppressed to gain dignity as a people was the embryo of democracy that developed two decades later as a pledge to unite under the banner of Indonesia. The peak of democracy was when the people were led by the people, as manifest in the declaration: “The people of Indonesia hereby declare their independence.” Thus, a new era of an independent democracy began.

Democracy is a choice, and it is what we have chosen. Our nationalism is inseparable from the dynamics of our democratic experiment. We are familiar with the terms liberal (parliamentarian) democracy, guided democracy, Pancasila democracy, transitional democracy and consolidated democracy. Our nationalism should grow ever stronger on entering an era of consolidated democracy.

Democracy without nationalism

Today, our democracy has entered a new era during which political participation has extended to the grassroots due to the spread of information in unprecedented rapid and far-reaching ways. The threat of irresponsible democracy lies in the national divisiveness born of the politicization of political preferences. In garnering political opinion and support, we have entered the era of faceless and post-truth democracy. What is important is not verified facts, but whatever that is believed to be true. The boundary between truth and falsehood has blurred.

The democratic participation of an overly spirited grassroots has deactivated Pancasila values, and this has separated freedom of expression from noble and globally renowned Indonesian values. It seems that Pancasila has been buried with the New Order. Glorifying one thing by desecrating another is not democratic practice. Seeing religious and ethnic issues as problems clearly undermines nationalism’s sense of unity. Indeed, there is no democracy without the people’s voice. However, the people’s voice is not necessarily the voice of democracy that unites and frees. Society is becoming increasingly insulated.

If the human capital deficit can be fixed by building more educational institutions, then the social capital deficit, which is marked by waning mutual trust, will alienate us from the state’s goal of “advancing general welfare” (Fukuyama, 1995). Instead of win or lose, black or white and right or wrong, our social culture is characterized more by accommodation. This is how we have conducted our politics, economics and democracy, even religious practices, so far.

Indeed, market and religious transnationalism has loosened our sense of nationalism. The uncompromising globalization has confused people, making them search frantically for anything they can hold on to that reaffirms their local identities.

However, the path of national awakening is not forged by the racial or religious ultra-nationalism or the populism that those who seek power often use in their slogans.

The political elite cannot exploit the low education level of the majority of the population by resorting to shallow politics and power play. The people must educate themselves in state affairs to avoid becoming ensnared by political fanaticism. If winning or losing is merely centered on figures, then our democracy will be short of narratives that tell of the people’s victory.

The narrative of the democratic revolution has cost lives. People have become ensnared under the laws of a ruling regime. Social cohesion has been disrupted. Energy is spent fighting one another rather than in synergizing development or in competing at the global level. The power seekers have capitalized on the people’s vote for short-term political gains.

If the obstacles in national life – both horizontal (among the people) and vertical (between the people and the government) – are neglected, small groups of people with little trust, living under negative prejudices, will emerge. Surely this will lead to an unhealthy nation.

Our nationalism is proven and is growing stronger as we develop as an independent nation. Indonesia’s contributions to economics, democracy and peace are recognized globally. After a century of National Awakening and 75 years of independence, we should be at a global level of technological mastery.

Other countries like Japan or Korea that have suffered worse than us from wartime destruction, have transformed themselves into global powerhouses of smart technology. Meanwhile, we remain a massive export market for the products of advanced nations. Competing with the products of other developing countries (Vietnam, Thailand, Bangladesh and India) is taking place on our doorstep.

Our scientific literacy remains low, like a person who is suffering from post-truth syndrome. So many crises around us, including environmental and humanitarian, are neglected because our democracy is not aiming for long-term national awakening. Let us practice democracy for the sake of national unity. Let us unite in responsible democracy.

Yonky Karman, Lecturer, Jakarta School of Philosophy and Theology