TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Reinterpreting Pancasila: Between instruments and essence
If unity is not based on the values of humanity, then it would become a model of totalitarian unity that does not respect human dignity.
Change Size
Shades of diversity: A child participates in a coloring contest held to commemorate the birth of Pancasila in Teras Pancasila subdistrict in Tangerang, Banten on June 1, 2022. (Antara/Fauzan)
S
utan Takdir Alisjahbana (STA), one of the prominent figures of the Indonesian Socialist Party (PSI), said in the Constituent Assembly back in 1957 that “it is a bit of an exaggeration to call Pantja Sila as a state philosophy; the principles it contains are not only too diverse, which if we examine its contents, it will appear to us that it is [not?] apart from the contradictions within itself. […] Within Pantja Sila, everything is not woven into a unified and coherent logic of thought; but it just lies strewn about,” (Risalah Perundingan Tahun 1957, Volume VI, page 161).
That was an honest confession from STA, because in the Constituent Assembly, which debated whether the basis of the Indonesian state was Islam or Pancasila, he was among those who "supported Pancasila with all their hearts". This means STA’s statement above was not an argument to reject Pancasila, but an acknowledgment that Pancasila itself, although worthy of being the basis of the state because it can be accepted by all groups, is not a logically coherent philosophy.
Quoting R.M. Soeripto from the Indonesian National Party (PNI), STA then stated that Pancasila was a political compromise that was formed "at a dangerous time in the history of our nation, which requires us to work quickly and precisely".
As a political compromise, Pancasila (five principles) succeeded in uniting various groups at that time so that the young Indonesian nation could move quickly to seize and defend its independence.
Pancasila as a unifying force was not only important in the early days of the Republic, but also in the present, when the nation is facing not only challenges related to sovereignty but also social, economic and environmental problems. As the unifying force, Pancasila should not be used as a tool to legitimize acts against the opposition as the New Order regime did.
That Pancasila is the basis of the state -- there should be no doubt about it. However, as a philosophy or, at least, an ideology, Pancasila still needs to be reinterpreted, considering its linguistic structure which is full of ambiguity, not to mention its principles which, as STA said, are too varied.
One of the early attempts to reinterpret Pancasila and explicitly refute STA’s view was taken by Notonagoro (1987), one of the pioneers of Pancasila philosophy. According to him, the principles of Pancasila are actually interconnected in a solid manner. The relationship is a hierarchy in the form of an inverted pyramid.
