The response to this question is simple. The relevance of an ideology does not reside solely within itself, but within its adherents. In this context, the classical theory of the German idealist philosopher, GW Friedrich Hegel, resonates profoundly. Ideas thrive when they engage in dialectical discourse with the diverse array of emerging ideas surrounding them.

Consider communism as a case in point. This ideology has crumbled in Eastern Europe, particularly in the former Soviet Union, and now confronts a severe crisis in North Korea. Yet, observe the situations in China and Vietnam today. There, it remains a steadfast guiding force in the pursuit of nation-building. However, one must not imagine that Chinese and Vietnamese communism today mirrors the tenets upheld by Mao Tse Tung or Ho Chi Minh.

The very same name, but an almost entirely different entity. This is a reinterpreted communism. An ideological entity that has and continues to engage dialectically with pressing issues, ideas and other ideologies, including its arch-nemesis, capitalism. While keeping its traditionally stiff political control, this version of communism is highly accommodating to a market economy.

Capitalism itself has also traversed a similar path. The ideology that has brought prosperity to major world economies for decades has been facing its own crisis. However, its adherents have opened themselves up to adapt and generate fresh reinterpretations of this ideology. Aware of the irrelevance of pure market competition, the invisible hands are no longer left solely to govern and carry out economic activities without state intervention.

Furthermore, in an effort to neutralize its negative externalities like environmental destruction and social inequality, capitalists have introduced new doctrines of sustainable development, green economy and corporate social responsibility. Conglomerates in capitalist nations are now actively engaged in various philanthropic activities, donating to poverty alleviation and healthcare improvement efforts in developing countries.

Without intending to compare or equate it with communism and capitalism, the same theory can be applied to Pancasila as an ideology. If the same question is posed, the answer would not be far off. The relevance of Pancasila depends heavily on whether its adherents open themselves up to dialectics. As a national principle, Pancasila cannot change, but as ideas, it needs to rejuvenate. 

Just as it was unearthed by Sukarno from the deep-rooted wisdom of the Nusantara's long history, this ideology can only continue to thrive if it can traverse the dynamic path of its adherents' history. Pancasila must be reinterpreted in order to effectively fulfill its role as a guiding force for the nation's development as well as a source of inspiration in addressing the myriad global challenges of today.

The current global challenges surpass the political and economic issues that have long been the central focus of ideologies like capitalism and communism for the past two centuries. The problems facing humanity today are rooted in more fundamental aspects, and Pancasila holds a greater potential to provide meaningful solutions compared to other ideologies.

There are, at least, three historical challenges that cast a shadow on the future of humanity, including in Indonesia.

First, the challenge of humanity as a biological species. As reflected in its second principle, Pancasila embodies the notion of humanity that aspires to build civilizations. However, the prevailing environmental crisis highlights a shift away from a human-centric approach to development. Unrestrained exploitation of natural resources jeopardizes the survival of all species, including humans.

Second, the challenge of humanity as a social species. The rise of sectarianism, driven by political and economic rivalries, poses a risk to our social cohesion. Religious and ethnic divides have become breeding grounds for prejudice and prolonged intergroup conflicts. These divisions threaten the very fabric of social capital, which is crucial for development and social integration, encompassing values of trust, cooperation, collectivism and shared norms.

Lastly, the challenge of humanity as a rational and intellectual species. The march of civilization, accompanied by technological advancements, has not only marginalized physical labor but also human intellect. As aptly observed by Nichols (2017), the abundance of information in the digital realm does not refine our reasoning capacity but rather dulls it. Passively absorbing information without critical processing undermines our cognitive abilities.

Instead of enhancing human learning, the rapid streams of information have become fodder for machines, making them increasingly, though artificially, "intelligent". This way, the thesis of French philosopher Michel Foucault that knowledge is a determinant of power relations may potentially hold true. Due to the knowledge it “possesses”, machines may have the potential to hold power over humans.

As an ideology that guides the direction of a nation-state's development, Pancasila needs to be tested against these humanity issues. In the context of the environmental crisis, a reinterpretation of all Pancasila’s principles can provide a foundation for religious practices, law enforcement, nationalism, expressions of democracy, and economic development that are oriented towards environmental sustainability.

Its fourth principle, for instance, ought to serve as the foundation for kerakyatan yang dipimpin oleh hikmat kebijaksanaan (leadership of wisdom in our democracy). This entails embracing and honoring the diverse local and indigenous wisdoms that prioritize the preservation of the Earth as their highest ideals. This should be reflected in policies, legislation, electoral campaigns and leaders’ behaviors.

Similarly, in addressing the challenge of social disintegration, Pancasila holds great potential to inspire policies and social practices that uphold diversity and mutual cooperation in order to achieve a common good. The narrative of the first principle, belief in the one and only God, for instance, goes beyond mere religious obedience interpreted exclusively according to each religion.

This principle can instead serve as the primary basis for tolerance and human unity in the name of God. This is a declaration of belief that every human being, regardless of their religion, fundamentally orients themselves toward the same God. Hence, religion should be a source of social capital that inspires unity and cooperation, rather than division.

In response to the disruptive information technology that can undermine human agency, the Pancasila narrative needs to emphasize the importance of education that shapes individuals with character, rather than mere knowledge. Individuals who are skilled and capable of developing their cognitive and emotional intelligence through continuous learning and adaptation. Only in this way can they embody kemanusiaan yang adil dan beradab (just and civilized humanity) and maintain control in the face of increasingly but artificially intelligent technology.

Of course, Pancasila adherents can choose to hold onto doctrinal narratives crafted with a spirit of revivalism. However, this will only turn the ideology into a symbol devoid of meaning. Its immense potential will not effectively guide the nation's development as accomplished by major world ideologies, let alone serve as an oasis amidst the global crisis of humanity.

***

The writer is a senior policy analyst at the Education, Culture, Research and Technology Ministry. The views expressed are his own.