The Report of the Monthly Discussion about the Matter of Pancasila’s First and Last Principle

After vacuum for two months, the regular monthly discussion of the Liberal Islam Network (JIL) is back, Thursday (May 25, 2011). JIL monthly discussion since the first time they got a bomb threat, with the topic “Indonesia and the doctrine of Pancasila”, presenting two speakers: Luthfi Assyaukanie (JIL) and Yudi Latif (Reform Institute). In particular, the topic of this discussion this time related to Mr. Yudi Latif’s recent book titled Negara Paripurna (A Final State).

Luthfi Assyaukanie started discussions by his story when he attended the launch of Mr.Yudi Latif’s book. He was amazed with people’s enthusiasm to congratulate for the launch of the book. “The congratulations to this Mr.Yudi Latif’s book exceed a wedding’s congratulation,” he said.

Great appreciation of this book, according to Luthfi, can not be separated from the context of the recent Indonesian issues that makes our memory to flashback to the past, where the threat to Pancasila and religious freedom re-occurs. This Mr.Yudi Latif’s book, Negara Paripurna is aptly to the present in such conditions, and therefore it’s not surprising if there is a lot of appreciation addressed to him. By quoting the famous PDIP politicians, Taufik Kiemas, who also briefly attended the book launch at that time, Luthfi said: “This book could be a reference book where the threats against the Pancasila and the freedom of religion happen again,” he said.

The amount of praise for the Negara Paripurna book, encourages Luthfi to give a comment and also criticism towards the book. From its title, the author of this book seemed wants to pose himself as Plato with his ideas about a state, Republic; or Al-Farabi, with his al-Madina al-Fadlilah. For Lutfi, all the concepts of an ideal state, as aspired by both Plato and Al-Farabi, and now by Yudi Latif with his book, is a utopian concept, unrealistic, dreamily, and hence it becomes difficult to is applied.

Lutfhi also criticized this book, since its political philosophy’s nuance is too strong. He suggested, if it adds little touches political science, this book will be much more special. Not just discussing about the theory of democracy, for example, but how democracy can be applied in Indonesia. However, Lutfi admitted there is a new within this book. Luthfi was impressed by the method of presentation of this book, he said, it is similar to classical interpretations, such as the interpretation of Al-Tabari, which discusses pointers in a sequence. As with previous interpretations, the book also presents a discussion about the precepts of Pancasila sequentially coupled with the prologue and the epilogue. In any discussion of the precepts, the precepts outlined the reasons for the sequence position, the background why the precepts arise and also its wording. Compare with the classic commentaries that discuss the verses in sequence by describing their munasabah, asbabunnuzul and its vocuabularies.

There are many books in this world that discuss about Pancasila in various languages, from Indonesian, English and so on. If we refer to the library of congress in the United States, as an example, we will find Pancasila-themed books not less than 600 books, and this Yudi Lathif’s book is one of those books. The number of books on the Pancasila as said by Luthfi is one indication that the discussion of this theme is so important. Thus it can be understood, given that the ideology of Pancasila as a single ideology of a country that is constantly challenged by many other ideologies that became his rival. Here, we are confronted by ideological rivalry.

If we refer to the history of Pancasila’s consolidation for example, according to Deliar Noer’s theory who categorizes the groups of Pancasila’s formulator it became Muslim-nationalist and nationalist-secular group, the fierce rivalry among ideologies at that happened. The most fierce ideological debate occurs between Islamic and secular nationalist groups. The clash with the socialism-communism ideology also existed, but it was not so fierce. Pancasila was born instead of competition between the two groups, which later gave birth to a compromise in its present form that we all know. Uniquely, the Pancasila as the compromise did not provide satisfaction between the two groups, both Islamist and secular nationalist groups. In contrast, both groups felt that they were disappointed. This explains why up to now those groups are still continue to undermine Pancasila mainly they are from Islamist groups. In relation to this Lutfi insisted, even if there is a group that feels being disappointed and hurt, it should be the secular nationalist group that deserve to feel those feelings, considering their sacrifice was so great to arrive at a compromise.

From Yudi Lathif’s book criticism, Lutfi went even further to criticize towards the state ideology, Pancasila. Lutfi feels that there is something wrong within the constitution of our country, especially in the formulation of Pancasila. Before criticizing, Lutfi also politely reminded, this criticism might be spelled as a simplification or maybe also “insolent”. However, he argues that as academic criticism, it is fairly acceptable. Lutfi views the five formulas Pancasila, there are two precepts that are problematic, i.e the first principle (of divinity) and last (of justice). The other three precepts are relatively non-problematic for him, because “the concept of modern-states” can accept those precepts. Unlike the three precepts, the first precepts is the representation of the basis of a political ideology, and the five precepts represents the foundation of economic ideology, according to Luthfi these two precepts tend to be ambiguous and chaotic.

Explaining his argument upon his critics towards the first precepts of Pancasila, Lutfi said, a philosophical foundation is very important both for ethic and civic in a state, and hence a rational formulation become very important for a constitution. Lutfi provide examples of how bad the rhetoric of the Islamic groups in history when they argued about the first precept. The Islamic group who was lost in a philosophical argument with the secular-nationalist group, demonstrated behaviors that tend not being objective (Kasman Singodimejo’s case: emotionally hitting the table). The atmosphere at that time depicted how strong the Islamic group pressure upon the first precepts. It was proved by at least two things. First, the removal order of the precepts of the latter being the first. Second, the editorial changes to the formulation of the divinity precepts, of the cultured divinity as defined by Sukarno to the divinity of the mighty one as we know it today.

Lutfi doubted whether the formulation of the divinity precepts will be able to go through history, given the way that it leaves a lot of problems. Lutfi’s scepticism is not without reason. He saw the first precept is a very biased monotheism. With the ideological bias is monotheistic, Lutfi doubted whether Buddhism and Hinduism for example, could be accepted “outrightly” in this country. Not to mention the phenomenon of atheism and agnosticism as the latter phenomenon appears on the surface (related to the intention of the atheist association groups which intend to develop Indonesia atheism book titled: Is Atheism able to Live in Indonesia). With a constitution which has a monotheistic bias, Lutfi doubted whether atheism is a legitimate prospect in Indonesia. With a different interpretation, such as Buya Syafi’i Ma’arif for example, the first precept can indeed open up a space for atheism. The question is: does such interpretation widely accepted by public? If it is still maintained, then the chances we have to fight for the meaning and it means it will be very tiring.

Lutfi also warned the danger of excessive religious associations towards the state, because it create several problems. First, the consequences of the unification of religious and state ideology in our social-political-religious life. Such as the cases of the institutionalization of religion by the state, such as MUI, the Department of Religion, and so on. With the excess to the religious associations, the state also becomes morally burdened to protect religious institutions.

When religion is co-opted by the state, then the implication is the birth of discrimination from majority against minorities. Lutfi exemplifies how difficult he debated at the Constitutional Court (MK) when defending Ahmadiyya minority groups for example. In this case, both Lutfi and MK both parties agreed that the state is obliged to protect the religion. The difference is: Lutfi’s understanding leads to the protection of religious minorities, while the interpretation of the Court leads to the protection of the religious majority from religious minorities. “It’s very strange”, he said. The next problem, arises from the question of religion-state relations: if Indonesia wants to be a rational modern state, or a state religion?

If the first principle is called monotheistic bias, Lutfi criticized the fifth precepts because it has a socialist bias. For Lutfi, the fifth precepts is so problematic as it pertains to economic freedom. Positioning himself as a libertarian, Lutfi criticized for whom the term social justice is very ambiguous and “rich of meaning”. Justice, as deciphered by Lutfi, is the terminology that comes from philosophy and religion. Therefore, the justice term occupies a very important position in state ideology. But correlating justice and social, is rhetorical. Justice itself is associated with the individual as a complete form what is called a minority. When speaking about minority, then we speak of individuals per individual. Justice is actually supposed to open the free enterprise (economic) to each individual. Similarly, because the individual freedom to make efforts is directly proportional to the economic growth of every nation.

Lutfi exemplifies how the countries of free enterprise or economic freedom usually become a prosperous country. While the term social justice emphasizes the aspects of distribution which is considered a socialist bias. Logically, therefore he said, it is wrong when talking about the distribution of wealth, as wealth itself does not exist. The truth is how wealth is created through economic freedom first, and then we talk about distribution. Although the concept is not approved by the generally liberal states, but the way it was relatively successful countries run by adherents of welfare-state system. For Lutfi, a measure of economic freedom is simple: namely whether every individual is free to work, trying, move things wherever he likes, whether it’s a license to do business quickly and easily, or tend to bureaucratic and convoluted?

This is Lutfi’s criticism towards the precepts of the divinity and social justice precepts. According to Lutfi, if the divinity precept became the one who gave birth to the Pancasila state—as a synthesis between the secular and religious state – is the political reflection of the nation, then the precepts of justice that gave birth to the economic life of our country, then it is the synthesis between the Pancasila-and socialist-liberal state, and then it is the reflection of our country’s economic policies. Both of these syntheses in Lutfi ‘s view have been creating a number of problems. And because it creates trouble, then all the constitutions and law that are born from the bottom is also not free from problems. With the troubled condition, Lutfi said Indonesia as a “state-of-not-not”: its political and economic structure are absurd.

Specifically Lutfi criticized Yudi Latif by saying that he did not find critical arguments in his book Negara Paripurna. Rather, the Negara Paripurna instead to preserve the concept of the “state-of-not-not”. When describing the first precept for example, Yudi emphatically praised by it as a very progressive achievement. Therefore, Indonesia is not a state religion or a secular state. While the fifth precepts related, Lutfi criticized this book because according to him, Yudi is too romanticized with the founding fathers of this country. While affirming his admiration for the founders of this nation, at the end of his description, Lutfi filed two solutions to this problem. First, by performing a second amendment to the troubled precepts. For him, the amendment was not an alien for our country. Throughout history, we have made repeated amendments. Second, the fight over the meaning or interpretation of the troubled precepts. Lutfi warned, the latter is very tiring, because it requires a long process and requires in civic life and religion.

Yudi Latif who came later in that evening, gave a description and feedback towards Lutfi’s presentation. He expressed his concern over the condition of current debates about the state in this country that he does not show intelligence. If we pull back to the history, especially when the meeting of BPUPKI was held, the debate about statehood was so lively and intelligent. Yudi was very impressed how the founding fathers of independence when included representatives representing all groups and parties in Indonesia, something that did not even exist in the history of European countries and America though. In contrast to Indonesia, the U.S. has only recently just gave suffrage to women, and recognizes the rights of groups outside the Anglo-Saxon. From here, Yudi felt there is a need to schedule that kind of debate from the past.

Entering into the discussion of the ideology of Pancasila, Yudi see the distance between the formulation of the constitution and Pancasila was not so long. Both of them according to Yudi is an integral package. Every Pancasila’s precepts have their own elaboration within the constitution. The relationship between Pancasila and the constitution by Yudi can be analogized to the relationship between the Koran and Hadith in the formulation of Islamic legislation.

Related to this relationship, at least there are three points which was the target Yudi’s criticism Yudi. First, Yudi regret the absence of the presidential term limits provision in the Constitution ‘45. According to Yudi, this error occurs because at that time created a formula that refers to the American presidential constitution that has not had a period of presidential term limits. Second, the sacralization of the Constitution that prevents amendment to the ‘45 Constitution. According to Yudi, this is a ridiculous act. Sacralisation towards the ’45 Constitution can be combatted by identifying the main idea of technical constitution of the ‘45 Constitution. This is important, because from that point we will know the ubiquitous aspects of the basic constitution of technical ‘45 that remains amendable. Third, Yudi criticized the scientific categorization is often used to identify a group of nationalist scholars from Islamic groups. According to Yudi, this category tends to be misleading, because those categories are not always homogeneous. Yudi exemplifies how Agus Salim from Islamic groups for example, in some cases tend to be secular. Or Hussein Djayadiningrat of secular groups, which had suggested to the opening of the Constitution with the word bismillah on the ‘45 Constitution’s preamble. In addition, the five known precepts, formulated in a compact substance by both parties. So, Yudi said, do not assume that one of the precepts as the proposal of secular group while the rest is the proposal of the Islamist group.

At the end of his description, Yudi hopes that his book Negara Paripurna could be the starting point of debate and reopen intelligent discourses that have been forgotten by Indonesian. So far, Yudi sees at least there are three patterns of how Indonesian people look toward Pancasila. First, those who assess the Pancasila is sacral. Secondly, those who view Pancasila cynically. For this group, Pancasila is nothing more than “junk”, because it could no longer answer the challenges of the global era. Third, the middle group, they don’t consider Pancasila as sacral, while they do not see it as “rubbish” as well. According to this latter group, Pancasila should be content, in terms of contextual interpretation towards it.

After presentations from those two speakers, the discussion continued with question and answer session with participants. There are several questions raised and and they were briefly commented by the speakers. Many critical comments such as the first question, regarding the comparison of the constitution in Indonesia and Singapore. Lutfi comment on, according to him, the index of economic freedom in Singapore is pretty good, but very bad in terms of political freedom, is inversely proportional to Indonesia. The second question, regarding the idea of the amendment of Pancasila that feared it would open old wounds, the fierce debate between nationalist and Islamic groups, or even providing an opportunity for Islamic extremist groups to uphold sharia in this country. Towards this question, Lutfi said, he also has the same concerns. However, Lutfi warned about the contextual nature of the formulation of the Constitution Act. He supposes the founders of the nation when they see today’s technological developments, and of course the formulation of Pancasila will change.

The third question, a rebuttal to the Lutfi’s criticism towards the first and fifth precepts. By citing the views of Nurcholish Madjid, about the true monotheism which is certainly not a threat, even opening up a space for atheism. Related to the fifth precepts, why not making as the third way (third way) as theorized by Giddens. Lutfi’s comments on these objections, each generation have different views and insights. Cak Nur’s generation, as said by Lutfi, not knowing the next generation of contemporary knowledge. While about a third way, Lutfi agreed that the five precepts could occupy that position. The problem, until now we see the fact that it is still unable to lead to better economic conditions.

While Yudi Latif further commented on the responses of participants in highlight. There are at least four important points of Yudi’s explanation. First, Yudi reminds that the ideology of Pancasila does not emerge from a vacuum chamber, and therefore it consists of full and rich value. We all know that throughout the history of this country, politics and economy has never been free from foreign interference. Second, Yudi criticized the practice of ancient capitalization which is still frequently used in nowadays. Ancient capitalization as described by Yudi is the capitalization of accumulating wealth by sucking the resources of other nations. In the case of Indonesia, for example, a good example of this ancient capitalization is the VOC. Third, Yudi describes the founders of this nation as the people who do not quite understand the philosophy, ideology but they understand hunch. This expression is not as ridicule, it even compliments. With their hunch, then the steps taken by the founders of this nation are safe from extremism, in the sense of taking the safe road, although likely to compromise. The best example is about individual rights, although the individual rights recognized in the constitution of our country but he still has a social function.

Yudi also praised hunch as a remarkable wisdom possessed by the founders of the nation. Fourth, related to the assumption of the book Negara Paripurna as utopias. Yudi explains that he means completeness plenary of the sides of the primacy. Yudi admitted that when he was writing this book, he positioned himself as an ideologue, and not a political science expert. With the perfection of the sides of its primacy, the ideology of Pancasila is expected to be a tool mirrored by anyone, anytime, which can show the sides of the strengths and weaknesses of each generation of this nation. Finally, Yudi also reminded if the ideals in which it can be approached in a practical level, the goal or the vision of a complete state is not impossible. []