 |
| Ilustrasi (Sumber: https://www.cnnindonesia.com/nasional/20180601160130-20-302771/hari-ini-73-tahun-silam-sukarno-cetuskan-pancasila) |
The five principles that Sukarno outlined in Pancasila were nationalism, internationalism, consensus or democracy, social welfare, and belief in a cultured Godhead. These principles not only addressed the political and social needs of a newly independent nation, but also reflected Sukarno’s vision of a harmonious society that would balance national pride with international unity, democracy with social justice, and spirituality with rational governance.
At the heart of Sukarno’s vision for Indonesia was the idea of a nationalism that transcended racial and ethnic divisions. He envisioned an Indonesia united by love for the nation, but one that did not shy away from embracing a global sense of brotherhood. His nationalism was not ethnocentric but sought to position Indonesia within the broader community of nations. In Sukarno’s view, the principle of nationalism was inseparable from internationalism, which advocated for the unity of nations across borders, regardless of skin color or cultural background.
The second principle, internationalism, followed logically from this conception of nationalism. For Sukarno, nationalism was not a barrier to global solidarity but a foundation for it. This idea was revolutionary at a time when many nations were still entrenched in colonialism or struggling with their post-colonial identities. Sukarno believed that a strong sense of national identity could facilitate cooperation between nations, particularly in the context of global peace and social justice. His vision was one of mutual respect among nations, where international relations were defined not by domination but by equality and shared human dignity.
The third principle, consensus or democracy (musyawarah), was central to Sukarno’s understanding of governance. He argued that democracy in Indonesia should be based on consensus, a process of deliberation and mutual agreement, particularly within the context of Islam, the dominant religion of Indonesia. In a plural society like Indonesia, Sukarno believed it was crucial to ensure that all groups, including the Muslim majority, had a voice in the democratic process. This principle of democracy was not just political; it was also moral, as it placed an emphasis on collective decision-making and a shared commitment to the common good.
The fourth principle, social welfare, reflected Sukarno’s deep concern for economic justice. He envisioned a state where social and economic inequalities were minimized, and the benefits of development were distributed equitably across all segments of society. Sukarno was critical of both Western capitalist systems and Soviet-style socialism, advocating instead for a uniquely Indonesian model of economic democracy that would ensure economic justice for all Indonesians, irrespective of their class, ethnicity, or religion.
The final principle, the belief in a cultured Godhead, encapsulated Sukarno’s vision of a state grounded in spiritual values, but one that embraced a pluralistic understanding of religion. In this principle, Sukarno called for a society where the belief in God was central to the lives of its citizens, but where this belief was expressed through cultural and philosophical tolerance. His conception of religion was not narrow or sectarian but sought to accommodate the religious diversity of the Indonesian archipelago. This principle reflected a unique form of religious syncretism that was both modern and deeply rooted in Indonesian traditions.
Sukarno’s Pancasila: A Syncretic Political Doctrine
Bernhard Dahm has described Sukarno’s approach to formulating Pancasila as syncretic—combining different political, cultural, and religious ideas into a coherent whole. Sukarno’s Pancasila was not just an abstract philosophical principle but a political tool meant to navigate Indonesia’s complex social fabric. Sukarno’s formulation of Pancasila was a political act, one that required negotiation and compromise with various societal forces, including religious groups and political factions. Sukarno’s decision to propose Pancasila in its early form was not merely theoretical; it was a pragmatic response to the challenges of forging a unified nation-state from a patchwork of ethnicities, languages, and religions.
In his speech, Sukarno recognized the pluralism inherent in Indonesia. He also acknowledged that Islam, being the majority religion, would play a central role in shaping the nation’s political and social life. Yet, he sought to create a space for Islam within the broader framework of Indonesian nationalism, thus preventing any one group from dominating the political landscape. This, as historian HJ. Benda noted, was an effort to persuade Islamic leaders, particularly the influential Islamists during the Japanese occupation, to abandon their desire for an Islamic state and accept a more inclusive, pluralistic national ideology.
Sukarno’s syncretism also played a role in navigating Indonesia’s complex relationship with Islam. The formulation of Pancasila was intended to reassure Muslims that Islam could coexist with the state without the need to establish an Islamic republic. For Islamic leaders like M. Natsir of the Masyumi Party, Sukarno’s Pancasila was an acceptable compromise, one that recognized the importance of Islam without imposing Islamic law on all citizens. Natsir even linked Pancasila to Islamic teachings, demonstrating that Islam was not in conflict with the values of Indonesian nationalism, and that both could work together for the common good of the nation.
Pancasila and Islam: A Symbiotic Relationship
While Sukarno’s Pancasila was, on the surface, a compromise between different factions, it also represented a deeper synthesis between Islamic and nationalist ideals. Islam, in its more universalistic form, is not inherently at odds with nationalism, and Sukarno’s Pancasila, by combining both, offered a vision of national unity that was grounded in both religious and secular principles. Islam could be understood as the moral and spiritual foundation of the nation, while nationalism provided the political structure that united the people under the banner of the Republic of Indonesia.
However, this vision was not without controversy. One of the most contentious issues surrounding the formulation of Pancasila was the wording of the first principle. The original draft of the Jakarta Charter, which was agreed upon by the Committee of Nine on June 22, 1945, included a clause that required Muslims to observe Islamic law. This provision was later removed and replaced with the more neutral phrase "Belief in the One and Only God." This change caused a significant polemic among Islamic leaders, as some viewed it as a dilution of Islam’s role in the state. Others, however, saw it as a pragmatic solution that allowed for a pluralistic society, in which Islam could coexist with other religions without imposing religious law on non-Muslims.
Despite this polemic, Sukarno’s Pancasila can be seen as a framework for reconciliation between the various forces in Indonesian society. The five principles, when taken together, represent a holistic vision of a nation that is rooted in faith but also committed to social justice, democracy, and international cooperation. Sukarno’s Pancasila, though politically negotiated, offered a synthesis of Indonesia’s diverse traditions—religious, cultural, and political—into a cohesive national identity.
The Legacy of Pancasila and Its Challenges
Pancasila remains the foundation of Indonesia’s state philosophy. However, its evolution has been shaped by the shifting political and religious dynamics of the country. Sukarno’s original formulation has undergone changes, most notably the removal of references to Islamic law. These changes reflect the ongoing negotiation between secular and religious forces in Indonesian politics.
One of the central debates surrounding Pancasila is its relationship with Islam. While Pancasila was intended to provide a framework for harmony between different religious groups, the reality of Indonesian politics has often seen tensions between Islamic groups and secular elements. The challenge for contemporary Indonesia lies in maintaining the delicate balance between Pancasila’s secular-nationalist framework and the desire among some segments of society for a more overtly Islamic state. This tension remains a central issue in Indonesian political discourse.
Despite these challenges, Sukarno’s vision of a multi-ethnic, multi-religious Indonesia united under Pancasila remains a guiding principle for the nation. The debate over the role of Islam in Indonesian politics is not a new one, but it continues to reflect the dynamic relationship between religion and state. Pancasila, as a state ideology, represents a continual process of negotiation, compromise, and synthesis—principles that are as relevant today as they were in 1945.
Pancasila as Imagined Communities
Benedict Anderson’s concept of "imagined communities" offers a useful lens through which to view Sukarno’s Pancasila. Anderson argued that nations are "imagined communities" because members of a nation will never meet most of their fellow members, yet they share a sense of solidarity and collective identity. In this sense, Pancasila functions as an ideological glue that binds together the diverse ethnic, cultural, and religious groups within Indonesia. It is an "imagined community" in which citizens identify with a common set of values and principles, despite their differences.
Sukarno’s formulation of Pancasila sought to create a sense of unity among Indonesians, not by erasing differences but by accommodating those differences within a shared ideological framework. Pancasila, in this sense, was a deliberate attempt to craft an inclusive national identity that could transcend ethnic, religious, and regional divisions. It provided a platform for creating a cohesive political community, grounded in values that were not strictly religious or secular, but a blend of both, shaped by the unique history and cultural diversity of Indonesia.
For Sukarno, the challenge was not only to build a nation but to foster a sense of solidarity among its people, who, as Anderson might suggest, could never truly know one another personally but could still identify with each other through shared symbols, values, and narratives. By positioning Pancasila as the core national ideology, Sukarno provided Indonesians with a "story" of national unity, one in which the principles of nationalism, democracy, social justice, and belief in God served as the foundational myths of the new republic.
In this context, Pancasila is an "imagined community" because it does not rely on any one religious or ethnic group for its legitimacy. Instead, it envisions a nation where all Indonesians, regardless of their background, are bound together by common ideals. It is a narrative of inclusivity, not exclusivity—a vision of Indonesia where diverse communities are integrated into a singular national identity. Sukarno’s Pancasila, thus, sought to foster a national imagination that could accommodate differences while uniting them in service of a collective, national project.
Islam and National Identity: A Balancing Act
For Indonesia’s Muslims, Pancasila presented a challenge in balancing their religious identity with their national identity. The question of whether Pancasila could serve as a true reflection of Islam, without imposing Islamic law on non-Muslims, was one of the most contentious issues in the years following the country’s independence. The polemic surrounding the Jakarta Charter and the subsequent modification of its provisions reflected a broader debate about the relationship between Islam and the state in Indonesia.
While some Islamic figures saw Pancasila as a compromise that allowed Islam to play a central role in Indonesian society without dominating it, others felt that the removal of explicit references to Islamic law weakened the potential for Islam to inform the nation’s political and legal structures. Sukarno, however, navigated this tension by emphasizing that Pancasila’s "belief in the One and Only God" was a principle that could accommodate Indonesia’s Muslim majority, without alienating its religious minorities or imposing religious orthodoxy on the state. This compromise allowed Indonesia to remain a secular republic with a deeply religious character, ensuring that Islam could inform the nation’s moral and cultural life without dictating its political framework.
Thus, in Sukarno’s vision, Pancasila functioned as a unifying ideology that could bring together the Islamic majority and religious minorities, creating a sense of national unity while allowing for the expression of individual and communal identities. The tension between these groups was not a question of reconciling opposites, but of finding a shared ground where differences could coexist within a common national framework.
The Enduring Relevance of Pancasila
Today, more than seven decades after its formulation, the relevance of Pancasila remains a subject of debate in Indonesia. As the country grapples with its evolving political and religious landscape, Pancasila continues to serve as both a source of national identity and a point of contention. The rise of political Islam in recent decades has led some to question whether Pancasila can continue to serve as a unifying ideology in a country where religious tensions have sometimes flared.
However, the strength of Pancasila lies in its ability to adapt to changing political realities. Sukarno’s Pancasila was not meant to be a static document but a living, evolving set of principles that could accommodate the diverse needs of Indonesia’s people. The challenge for contemporary Indonesia is to continue to interpret and apply Pancasila in a way that upholds its foundational values of unity, justice, and democracy, while navigating the complex and often contentious relationship between religion and politics.
As Indonesia moves forward, Pancasila remains a critical tool for maintaining national unity. In an era where global forces and internal pressures seek to divide the nation along religious, ethnic, and ideological lines, Pancasila offers a reminder of Indonesia’s foundational commitment to pluralism. It is a doctrine that emphasizes the importance of shared values, mutual respect, and collective responsibility, while recognizing and respecting the diversity of its people.
Pancasila as the Foundation of Political Stability
One of the greatest challenges Indonesia faces today is maintaining political stability in the face of a rapidly changing society. The rise of religious and ideological movements, both Islamic and secular, has tested the limits of Indonesia’s political framework. However, Sukarno’s Pancasila offers a foundation for political stability, as it is a set of principles that can be embraced by all citizens, regardless of their political or religious affiliations.
By emphasizing the importance of democracy, consensus, and social justice, Pancasila encourages political engagement through dialogue and cooperation, rather than division and conflict. It calls for mutual respect among different groups and offers a pathway for resolving disputes through deliberation and compromise. This democratic spirit, rooted in the principle of musyawarah, ensures that all Indonesians have a voice in the nation’s political processes, making it a system that promotes inclusivity and fairness.
Pancasila also emphasizes social welfare and justice, ensuring that political power is not concentrated in the hands of a few but is distributed equitably across society. This focus on social justice has helped Indonesia avoid some of the extremes of inequality seen in other nations, though challenges remain in ensuring that all Indonesians benefit equally from the country’s development. By reinforcing the idea that political power should be exercised for the common good, Pancasila continues to offer a path toward political stability and social harmony.
The Enduring Vision of Sukarno
Ultimately, the legacy of Sukarno’s vision lies in its continued relevance as a framework for national unity. His formulation of Pancasila was an imaginative act of nation-building, one that sought to reconcile the diverse and often conflicting elements of Indonesian society into a cohesive whole. By drawing on both nationalist and Islamic principles, Sukarno crafted a vision of Indonesia that was both rooted in its traditions and open to the possibilities of the future.
Today, Indonesia’s political leaders must continue to navigate the tensions between these diverse forces, ensuring that Pancasila remains a living document that can unite the nation in the face of new challenges. In a globalized world, where national identities are increasingly contested, Sukarno’s vision of an Indonesia united by shared values remains a beacon for the future. Pancasila is not just a set of principles but a living tradition, one that must be continuously interpreted and applied to meet the needs of a changing society.
In conclusion, Sukarno’s vision of Pancasila as a synthesis of nationalism, democracy, social justice, and spirituality remains a guiding light for Indonesia. Its continued relevance lies in its ability to adapt to changing political realities while staying true to the core values that define the Indonesian nation. Through the lens of imagined communities, Pancasila is both a reflection of Indonesia’s shared past and a foundation for its collective future, a symbol of unity that transcends the boundaries of religion, ethnicity, and ideology. It is a vision of Indonesia as a nation built on the principles of mutual respect, cooperation, and shared purpose—one that can continue to evolve while remaining true to its foundational ideals.***
