http://www.thejakartapost.com/community/ina1.asp
November 11, 2007
Pluralism -- Beyond Unity in Diversity
The Sanskrit words in the state motto Bhinneka Tunggal Ika, which has been loosely translated as Unity in Diversity, will no doubt be invoked as Indonesia marks the 60th anniversary of the proclamation of independence this week. Six decades is a long journey for a nation whose main trait, ever since its inception in 1945, is its diversity. That we have stayed as one nation through all this time, in spite of forces that constantly threaten to tear us apart, is certainly worth celebrating. But let us not forget that it has taken a lot of efforts by people with such diverse backgrounds -- from culture, ethnicity and religion to language, tradition and custom -- to make Indonesia what it is today. Most of us probably do it subconsciously. Others, because they are more exposed to diversity for one reason or another know that they have had to work extra hard to make unity in diversity work. In this special Independence Anniversary supplement, we look into pluralism, an issue that has long been neglected but, as we shall find out from the stories in the following pages, is probably the one thing that has kept people of diverse backgrounds united. These stories, which are written from the perspective of the characters rather than of the writers, illustrate the challenges of diversity at the grassroots level, and of the ways they overcome them. We are gratified that they consented to take part in this mini project on pluralism, to be interviewed at length and for days, and for allowing our writers at times to intrude in their private lives, so that we get the materials from them that tell their story as honestly and effectively as possible. One thread that runs through these stories is the message that we should not take our unity for granted. Peaceful coexistence between people of diverse backgrounds, whether they are bound together in marriage, in family, in community, in village, or town can only come if everyone strives to make things work. We all need to build the bridges that somehow connect us in spite of our differences. It may sound like a simple message, but it is an important one. We have deliberately kept the academic discourse on pluralism to the minimum, and we thank the contributors for their part in explaining the term and its importance to Indonesia. The main part of this project on pluralism is the stories told of firsthand experiences of ordinary people coming to terms with their differences. They know of the immense challenges, and they have learned, through trial and error, to deal with them. And what is true at the grassroots level is also true at the national level. If pluralism keeps together a marriage, a family, or a community, then it can also keep a nation united, especially one that is as diverse as Indonesia. Indonesia has miraculously remained intact as one nation, but if it is to survive for six decades or more, merely accepting our differences will not be sufficient. We need to go further to turn every corner of this country, from Sabang to Merauke, into a better place to live for everyone, regardless of race, ethnicity, culture, language, religion, gender, generation, social and economic status. If we want to go one step beyond unity in diversity, pluralism is the way forward.
What is pluralism? Why is it important for Indonesia's future? Like every other "ism", pluralism is a set of values. They include respecting our differences, and striving to work together on the basis of equality. Dialog is also an important part of pluralism in order to nurture relations between people of different backgrounds. And there is also cooperation to achieve common goals. Many conservative religious leaders have denounced pluralism as going against their belief. They fear that since pluralism treats all religions as equal, it liberates people to choose and switch between religions. This of course is a gross misconception. Pluralism does not make all religions equal. No one has the right to tell you what to believe, and similarly, if you believe your religion is superior, no one can tell you otherwise. Pluralism states that in interfaith relations, there should be equality in positions between people of different faiths for any meaningful dialog to take place. This requires people to go beyond tolerating "the other". Many religious leaders are already advocating tolerance to promote interfaith dialog. But tolerance still implies one's own superiority; that one is stronger, more powerful, or is in the majority and can therefore dictate the terms of their relationship with the others. Such a presumption makes meaningful dialog difficult if not impossible. We need to go beyond tolerating people of other faiths, and that means respecting their beliefs and restraining ourselves from imposing our values or beliefs on them. The argument for pluralism in religion holds true in other aspects that divide our nation along the lines of race, ethnicity, language, custom, tradition and historical background, and even gender, sexual orientation, generation, social and economic status. The four main tenets of pluralism -- mutual respect, equality, dialog and cooperation -- should be applied in promoting peaceful coexistence among people of diverse backgrounds, whether within marriage, in villages or communities, or in a nation. Pluralism is crucial for Indonesia because of the immense diversity of its 220 million people spread across the archipelago. The people of Europe, by comparison, are far more homogeneous. * Race: There are two dominant races: Malay in the west and Melanesian in the east. There are also minority groups like Chinese, Arabs, Indians and European/Eurasian. * Ethnicity/Cultural group: There are hundreds of ethnic and sub-ethnic groups each with its own culture and traditions. Javanese is the largest of the ethnic groups. Other major groups include Batak, Acehnese and Minang in Sumatra, Sundanese, Madurese and Balinese, Bugis and Menadonese in Sulawesi. Then there are the small and often marginalized groups like Betawi in Jakarta, and the Dayak in Borneo and the many tribes in Papua. * Language: Nearly 400 distinct languages and dialects are spoken in Indonesia. Bahasa Indonesia is the national language and is used in official functions. Most people, however, speak their local tongue in daily activities. * Religion: All the world's major religions are represented in Indonesia, and they coexist and are often practiced side by side with local and homegrown beliefs that include various forms of animism. Although the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, the government only recognizes five faiths for the purpose of population census. Islam is the largest with 88 percent, followed by Protestantism with 5 percent, Catholicism with 3 percent, Hinduism with 2 percent and Buddhism with 1 percent. There are not many other countries that are as racially, ethnically, culturally and religiously diverse as Indonesia. But as in other parts of the world, this diversity is complicated by issues of gender, political ideology, rising regionalism, and social and economic divisions also clamoring for attention. Any debate on pluralism cannot avoid addressing these issues either. While this diversity has certainly enriched Indonesia, it has also been the source of many violent conflicts, tensions, prejudices and mutual suspicion. Most of the conflicts that we have seen in the nation's 60-year journey can be traced to the failure of people to overcome their differences, whether in ideology, religion, race and ethnicity, custom, tradition and language, or social and economic disparity, or a combination of two or more of these factors. Even today, one can still sense tensions rooted in the diversity of this nation. Discrimination and marginalization, as well as prejudices, inflicted by one group against another in society remain rampant. In the past, particularly during the Soeharto years between 1965 and 1998, differences that even remotely threatened to break out into a conflict were suppressed, at times by violent means, in the name of preserving unity. Diversity was sacrificed in favor of uniformity if not conformity, and to protect the Unitary Republic of Indonesia. Today, we, as a nation are committed to democracy. And promoting pluralism is a much better way of dealing with our differences. Resorting to the use of force and intimidation, as Indonesia has done in the past, only stokes resentment that would explode into violent conflicts later on. Many present conflicts are legacies of past wrong policies. It is clear that the extent to which Indonesia adheres to and practices pluralism, and thus addresses issues arising out of its complex diversity, will determine the future of this country. As we celebrate our 60th anniversary of independence, we should renew our commitment to the state motto Unity in Diversity by making pluralism part of our daily lexicon. Our survival as one nation depends on it.
The 60th anniversary of Indonesia's independence comes on the heels of a national polemic on issues concerning liberalism, pluralism and secularism. The polemic came to the fore after the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) issued controversial edicts banning these ideas. One of MUI's recent edicts condemns pluralism, liberalism and secularism. One of the problems with such condemnations is their vagueness. These three terms can mean a lot. Maybe the MUI was thinking of specific attitudes that may, indeed, be questionable. But by stigmatizing these three terms without further distinction, they open the door to a religious witch-hunt. At the same time they release themselves from the burden of argument. Let us begin with secularism. Secularism is still a no-speak in Indonesia. Indonesia, so it officially goes, is neither a religious state, nor a secular state, but a Pancasila state. Secular was, and still is, a red cloth for parts of the Muslim community. It is immediately associated with secularism, the 19th century anti-Catholicism ideology in Latin-Europe that wanted to ban religion from public spaces. France is one of the few surviving "secularist" states. But this kind of secularism never has been an option for Indonesia. And it is an outdated model. No less than then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) and Jrgen Habermas agreed during their famous dialog on Jan. 19, 2004 in Munich that the democratic state cannot itself produce the basic values it presupposes and should therefore listen to the great cultural and religious traditions of humankind. But internationally, and in growing measure also in Indonesia, a secular state does not mean enmity between state and religion. It means two things. First, the state has no right to enforce religious behavior. Whether and how citizens practice their religion is not the business of the state. Second, religions cannot impose their doctrines on the state. State policies are exclusively determined by the democratic will of the citizens, based on law, in respect of human rights. That does not mean that the state disregards religions. As part of civil society, their values and judgments enter public space and belong to the social reality in relation to which the state determines its policies. Thus the "secular state" today stands for respect for human rights, non-discrimination, tolerance and democracy. Its rejection would mean nothing less than rejection of the civilized democratic state. The secular state, on the other hand, reflects one of the most important insights of the modern world, namely that religious power is only as genuine as the power of conviction. Religious obedience essentially has to be rendered freely. There is a growing consensus among religions that such a secular state is not just a necessary evil, forced upon them by modernity, but actually the ideal situation for the religions themselves (for an insight into the "separation of state and Church power" see Joseph Kardinal Ratzinger, Werte in Zeiten des Umbruchs, Freiburg 2005). MUI also condemned liberalism. Of course, liberalism can mean a lot. It could mean libertinism, economic laissez faire, it also means the great movement that gave birth to the greatest political idea of modernity, democracy based on law and respect for human rights. Religions often did not like liberalism. It smelled of people putting subjective preferences in place of obedience of faith. But in Indonesia (as elsewhere) liberalism as a religious attitude means firstly openness. Openness to questions, openness to criticism, openness to other points of views, openness to objections. It is a serious attitude that includes readiness to learn. MUI condemned liberalism as "free thinking". Does this mean they want to condemn precisely such openness? Allergy to open thinking and questioning, and its opposite, a dour attitude of "we already possess the truth and therefore have nothing to learn", is, of course, not the monopoly of one religion alone. It is a dangerous temptation for religious people in general. It is the fallacy of thinking that since God cannot be challenged, their religious opinions must be absolutely true. Such arrogance has often been the sin of teachers of religion. This is something grave because the essence of religiosity is humility. A truly religious person knows that he or she will never grasp the whole meaning of God's revelation. Therefore he or she is open to questions and never stops learning. Liberalism as openness is therefore an essential religious virtue. But the most shocking condemnation, in my eyes, is the condemnation of pluralism. Pluralism has always been regarded as crucial to the existence of Indonesia. Her multi-dimensional plurality can only form a unity if this plurality is acknowledged. The state motto Bhinneka Tunggal Ika (unity in diversity) says that much. There we have to avoid a misunderstanding. The word pluralism has sometimes been high jacked for the opinion that we should acknowledge all religions as equally valid. Thus religions should let go of their respective claims to truth. But such an opinion is not pluralism but relativism. Relativism is a bogus pluralism because it does away with the differences, and therefore with what is specific to each religion. Religions are only different expressions of the religious nature of humankind. You have the right to believe this, but it is not what religions themselves believe. Relativism is, therefore, the opposite of tolerance since it demands that religions let go of their deepest convictions. It should be clear that relativism is contrary to the essence of belief: How can I believe something, if I do not believe it to be true and, by implication, that competing ideas are not true? Real pluralists accept that we have different beliefs. They do not try to "relativize" their respective teachings, but they are convinced that, in spite of different beliefs, we are united in common values. Such values would be respect for the integrity of every human being, refusal to use violence to solve conflict, justice, freedom of religion, thought and expression, solidarity with the poor and downtrodden. In Indonesia, many of us have made the very happy discovery that we do, indeed, have these common values across our different religions. Only real pluralists can be tolerant. True tolerance is the cheerful acceptance of the fact that around me there live people with different beliefs. Pluralism safeguards tolerance by institutionalizing the equal rights and liberties of people with different religious beliefs. A different question, touched by MUI's edict is whether eternal salvation is offered to all humankind or only to one's own religious community? The answer to this question can, of course, only be given by the respective religions themselves. For the Catholic Church the Second Vatican Council declared that God's salvation is offered without exception to all humans. To say it clearly: You do not have to be baptized in order to go to heaven. In the Protestant Churches there are different opinions. For Islam, theologians such as Nurcholish Madjid and Abdulaziz Sachedina have shown that non-Muslim can nevertheless be "Muslim" and therefore go to heaven. But this is not a question of pluralism, but of inclusivity versus exclusivism (which denies heaven for members of other religions). It is, of course, the right of MUI to take an exclusivist position. Exclusivism once reigned undisputed among the three Abrahamistic religions. But now it is under strong scrutiny. Hard questions are being asked to believers in a holy and just God. Too many terrible things have been done through history up to this day in the name of religion. Whoever wants to show that there is a just and loving God should be extremely reluctant in assigning anybody to eternal damnation. Father Franz Magnis-Suseno is a Jesuit priest, he teaches philosophy at Driyarkara School of Philosophy in Jakarta
No comments:
Post a Comment