-
25 INDONESIA’S HISTORY UNFOLDING
- ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute
- Chapter
- Additional Information
It is almost impossible in our concern for the modern study of Indonesian history not to feel the impact of the ahistorical attitude of Indonesian traditional culture on its students ... This can be seen in the strong disposition to mythologize, the precipitous inclination to see relationships of a moral significance between events that are not necessarily related at all. (Soedjatmoko 1965, p. 411) There is much truth in the words of Soedjatmoko: studying Indonesian political , economic and social history is a process fraught with difficulty, possibility and, occasionally, disappointment. Discerning myth from reality and form from content is a constant challenge not just for historians (in their various forms), but for those other disciplinarians such as political scientists, anthropologists , demographers and sociologists. To paraphrase John Legge (1980), Indonesia is still a picture being painted. This is particularly the case at the present time when nothing – and no one – is beyond scrutiny or reproach. One of the greatest challenges for anyone attempting to interpret patterns or structures, illuminate basic identities and define fundamental contiguities and polarities in Indonesian history is to recognise connections between different episodes and to avoid drawing parallels – where on first inspection they appear to exist – between events that are sometimes totally unrelated. In studying a society as heterogeneous and complex as Indonesia, it is imperative to be cognisant of the perpetual likelihood of change, contradiction and paradox, and prepared to constantly rethink supposedly ‘fixed’ principles or positions. One should always be mindful of the need to study the present with reference to the past, rather than the past with reference to the present. Indonesia’s diversity – ethnic, linguistic, geographic and so forth – is a further complication because it includes multi-faceted and separate yet parallel (and sometimes shared) histories and experiences. The unfolding of Indonesia’s history 25 INDONESIA’S HISTORY UNFOLDING Grayson J. Lloyd and Shannon L. Smith 311 AA/Part4&5 23/3/01 6:28 PM Page 311 has, as Legge notes, ‘been a triumph of co-existence’ (Legge 1980, p. 193). Indeed, it is perhaps less amazing that the issue of the potential disintegration of the nation has arisen again than that the Indonesian nation has survived until now, albeit tenuously at times. The 20th century was a period of significant challenge, achievement and evolution in Indonesia across a variety of spheres. It was also a period of distinct contrasts. Among other things it contrasted unitarism and nationalism (and its multiple interpretations) with separatism and regional inequality; the solipsistic tendency of presidential leadership with consultation (musjawarah ); and the incompatibility of authoritarianism and democratic ideals. It juxtaposed ideological homogeneity with pluralism; secularism with nonsecularism ; militarism with the notion of a civil society; economic development with economic democracy; social welfare and laissez faire; and conservatism with radicalism. The latter demonstrated a propensity to latch onto social, ethnic and religious violence in times of economic downturn and transmogrify the inherently moderate nature of Islam in Indonesia, creating friction between Muslims and Christians and other religious groups. The question is whether these are themes or, rather, episodes, unrelated yet similar and recurring. Because of its huge and ethnically diverse population and the problems of communicating across an elongated archipelago, Indonesia’s leaders have often dealt ineffectively with such issues, sometimes resulting in the occurrence of violence, popular protest or the revival of religious movements. While violence is rarely an appropriate response to problems arising from the size and diversity of Indonesia, it is at least an understandable method of expressing social dissatisfaction. However, the widespread and endemic socio-religious and ethnic violence in Indonesia today, and the accompanying increase in vigilantism in the socio-political sphere, constitutes an additional significant threat to the maintenance of the nation’s unity and harmony. Popular protest and mass mobilisation have been a part of the relationship between the elite and the masses at least since the declaration of independence if not earlier. Mass political movements played a role in the fall of the Dutch colonial, Sukarno, Soeharto and Habibie regimes, but the masses have also been manipulated by elites to serve political, social and economic objectives. Indeed, political parties – particularly in the modern context – use their mass supporter bases and paramilitary wings to maintain positions of power and challenge rival factions. Indonesia’s history also contains a strong current of millenarian-like radicalism and illustrates a capacity for radical religious appeal to mobilise mass support. As M.C. Ricklefs notes in this volume, volatility goes hand in hand with Indonesia’s search for...