Flower Frog

J. D. Legge's biography charts the life and career of Sukarno in intricate detail. Particularly strong are the descriptions of the internal machinations and wheeler dealing amongst the Indonesian political elite. Sukarno is presented as one of the major political figures of the twentieth century. If anyone should doubt this, then recall that the terms "Third World" and "Non-Aligned", terms that structured our thinking about the world for decades and perhaps still do, would probably not have existed if Sukarno had not promoted them. The former arose out of the 1955 Bandung conference, which Sukarno hosted, and the latter out of continued initiatives involving the Indonesian president. Furthermore Sukarno's significance for the century is also underlined by the fact that the aftermath of the coup that ousted him led to the murder of 250,000 people, while the president himself was allowed to live out his last years and die a natural death. Legge stops short of laying the ultimate responsibility for these deaths at Sukarno's door, and neither can he be certain about the president's relation to the coup. True, he lost power as a result, but he did not lose his life. He lost most of his dignity, but remained such an esteemed figure after 50 years in politics that he retained at least a figurehead status up to his death.A point that Legge underplays, however, is the relationship between the nationalism that formed the basis of Sukarno's politics and the pragmatism that sought inevitably loose alliances to both define and promote it. One such Sukarno initiative in particular, NASAKOM, may have been responsible ultimately for precipitating the coup and even causing the slaughter.

Sukarno was almost as old as the century, being born in June 1901 in East Java. Legge makes an interesting point about his parents, who met in Singharaja, Bali, while his father was a teacher there. The father was Javanese, a member of the aristocratic priyayi class, but his mother was Balinese and not even a Muslim. I have visited Bali and Singharaja and East Java and can fully appreciate the fundamental differences, both cultural and religious, between these places. And yet, from this mixed parentage there was born a figure who consistently espoused nationalism as a defining ideology. But from the start, and perhaps because of his background, it was a syncretic nationalism that tried to create unity by bridging difference.

Initially, of course, this nationalism was defined via opposition to Dutch colonial rule. It was a nationalism that brought the young Sukarno into conflict with the authorities, led to periods of imprisonment and exile. Nothing strange here. The twentieth century is full of such figures who struggled against externally-imposed colonial rule. In the Second World War, Sukarno, like Laurel in the Philippines, collaborated with the Japanese. But whereas to the north Laurel was eventually disgraced by the association, Sukarno found himself in 1945 the president of an independent Indonesia. And here, perhaps is where the nationalist ideology became, out of necessity, essentially pragmatic.

As an ideology, nationalism claims it expresses a single identity or culture, often defined by language or religion. And this despite the fact that there are almost no nations that actually display the homogeneity that the ideology assumes. It thus has the capacity to become an exclusive force in direct contradiction to its stated aim. Thus nationalism inevitably is an ideology that is easiest to define and promulgate by opposing what it is not, rather than defining precisely what it is. We only have to think of the agendas of the so-called nationalist parties and movements in contemporary Europe, and how they crystallize around opposition. In Britain, we have the United Kingdom Independence Party, UKIP, which is nationalist because it opposes the European Union. And we have the National Front, nationalist because it opposes immigration. The list could be a long one. So nationalism often must be defined in relation to what we are not, rather than via what we are.

If you live in a country subjected to colonial rule, it is surely easy to define nationalism around concepts of independence and self-government. One these things have been achieved, however, the focus that defined the nationalism is removed. If it is to continue as an ideology for an independent nation, it must change, one option is for it to be elevated to state-worship, almost to the status of a national religion. The North Korea of Kim Il Sung was this route in extremis. But in a country as vast as Indonesia, the social conformity this route requires could never have been achieved.

So Sukarno took the other route that can sustain nationalism as a state ideology, which was expansionism, coupled with attempts to create coalitions across political ideology and religion. The expansionist tendency led to the incorporation of West Irian into Indonesia. It also led to Sukarno's opposition to the establishment of a Malaysian Federation and thus to several years of war in Borneo. It might be argued the same need for expansion to bolster nationalism led, under Suharto, to the invasion of East Timor. The point here is that the external positions are adopted in order to define internal political identity.

As well as promoting an external focus, alliances and coalitions must be erected internally to create at least a semblance of unity. Sukarno's NASAKOM was such an attempt, an initiative to unite Nasionalisme, Agama and Komunisme, Nationalism, Religion and Communism. And so the Indonesian Communist Party, the PKI, was part of an equation whose result was always going to be a problem, given the ubiquity of the cold War and the proximity of China. When we consider the difficulty of creating unity out of such an admixture, we then appreciate the need for nationalism to retain its external focus. No nationalist agenda can cut across ideological differences that are global. In Sukarno's case, effectively the Cold War won. The internal tensions had to be resolved and, in Indonesia's case, it led to military action, the slaughter of 250,000 communist sympathisers and anyone else who got in the way, and the emergence of an initially pro-Western government under Suharto.

But despite this unsatisfactory end for Sukarno's nationalism, J. D. Legge reminds us of his achievements. Modern Indonesia came into being under Sukarno's leadership and vision. The politics of the region and of the century were influenced by him. And he was leader of one of the world's most populous countries for over two decades. Certainly he was a great figure, but, because of his use of syncretic nationalism, he was not a contributor to political thought and so, perhaps, his influence died with him. J. D. Legge's Sukarno - A Political Biography is a superb, scholarly and measured account of this life and career.

J. D. Legge's biography charts the life and career of Sukarno in intricate detail. Particularly strong are the descriptions of the internal machinations and wheeler dealing amongst the Indonesian political elite. Sukarno is presented as one of the major political figures of the twentieth century. If anyone should doubt this, then recall that the terms "Third World" and "Non-Aligned", terms that structured our thinking about the world for decades and perhaps still do, would probably not have existed if Sukarno had not promoted them. The former arose out of the 1955 Bandung conference, which Sukarno hosted, and the latter out of continued initiatives involving the Indonesian president. Furthermore Sukarno's significance for the century is also underlined by the fact that the aftermath of the coup that ousted him led to the murder of 250,000 people, while the president himself was allowed to live out his last years and die a natural death. Legge stops short of laying the ultimate responsibility for these deaths at Sukarno's door, and neither can he be certain about the president's relation to the coup. True, he lost power as a result, but he did not lose his life. He lost most of his dignity, but remained such an esteemed figure after 50 years in politics that he retained at least a figurehead status up to his death.A point that Legge underplays, however, is the relationship between the nationalism that formed the basis of Sukarno's politics and the pragmatism that sought inevitably loose alliances to both define and promote it. One such Sukarno initiative in particular, NASAKOM, may have been responsible ultimately for precipitating the coup and even causing the slaughter.

Sukarno was almost as old as the century, being born in June 1901 in East Java. Legge makes an interesting point about his parents, who met in Singharaja, Bali, while his father was a teacher there. The father was Javanese, a member of the aristocratic priyayi class, but his mother was Balinese and not even a Muslim. I have visited Bali and Singharaja and East Java and can fully appreciate the fundamental differences, both cultural and religious, between these places. And yet, from this mixed parentage there was born a figure who consistently espoused nationalism as a defining ideology. But from the start, and perhaps because of his background, it was a syncretic nationalism that tried to create unity by bridging difference.

Initially, of course, this nationalism was defined via opposition to Dutch colonial rule. It was a nationalism that brought the young Sukarno into conflict with the authorities, led to periods of imprisonment and exile. Nothing strange here. The twentieth century is full of such figures who struggled against externally-imposed colonial rule. In the Second World War, Sukarno, like Laurel in the Philippines, collaborated with the Japanese. But whereas to the north Laurel was eventually disgraced by the association, Sukarno found himself in 1945 the president of an independent Indonesia. And here, perhaps is where the nationalist ideology became, out of necessity, essentially pragmatic.

As an ideology, nationalism claims it expresses a single identity or culture, often defined by language or religion. And this despite the fact that there are almost no nations that actually display the homogeneity that the ideology assumes. It thus has the capacity to become an exclusive force in direct contradiction to its stated aim. Thus nationalism inevitably is an ideology that is easiest to define and promulgate by opposing what it is not, rather than defining precisely what it is. We only have to think of the agendas of the so-called nationalist parties and movements in contemporary Europe, and how they crystallize around opposition. In Britain, we have the United Kingdom Independence Party, UKIP, which is nationalist because it opposes the European Union. And we have the National Front, nationalist because it opposes immigration. The list could be a long one. So nationalism often must be defined in relation to what we are not, rather than via what we are.

If you live in a country subjected to colonial rule, it is surely easy to define nationalism around concepts of independence and self-government. One these things have been achieved, however, the focus that defined the nationalism is removed. If it is to continue as an ideology for an independent nation, it must change, one option is for it to be elevated to state-worship, almost to the status of a national religion. The North Korea of Kim Il Sung was this route in extremis. But in a country as vast as Indonesia, the social conformity this route requires could never have been achieved.

So Sukarno took the other route that can sustain nationalism as a state ideology, which was expansionism, coupled with attempts to create coalitions across political ideology and religion. The expansionist tendency led to the incorporation of West Irian into Indonesia. It also led to Sukarno's opposition to the establishment of a Malaysian Federation and thus to several years of war in Borneo. It might be argued the same need for expansion to bolster nationalism led, under Suharto, to the invasion of East Timor. The point here is that the external positions are adopted in order to define internal political identity.

As well as promoting an external focus, alliances and coalitions must be erected internally to create at least a semblance of unity. Sukarno's NASAKOM was such an attempt, an initiative to unite Nasionalisme, Agama and Komunisme, Nationalism, Religion and Communism. And so the Indonesian Communist Party, the PKI, was part of an equation whose result was always going to be a problem, given the ubiquity of the cold War and the proximity of China. When we consider the difficulty of creating unity out of such an admixture, we then appreciate the need for nationalism to retain its external focus. No nationalist agenda can cut across ideological differences that are global. In Sukarno's case, effectively the Cold War won. The internal tensions had to be resolved and, in Indonesia's case, it led to military action, the slaughter of 250,000 communist sympathisers and anyone else who got in the way, and the emergence of an initially pro-Western government under Suharto.

But despite this unsatisfactory end for Sukarno's nationalism, J. D. Legge reminds us of his achievements. Modern Indonesia came into being under Sukarno's leadership and vision. The politics of the region and of the century were influenced by him. And he was leader of one of the world's most populous countries for over two decades. Certainly he was a great figure, but, because of his use of syncretic nationalism, he was not a contributor to political thought and so, perhaps, his influence died with him. J. D. Legge's Sukarno - A Political Biography is a superb, scholarly and measured account of this life and career.

Pendahuluan.

Timbulnya Nasionalisme

Nasionalisme muncul dibelahan negara-negara dunia. Akan tetapi, faktor penyebab timbulnya nasionalisme di setiap benua berbeda.

Nasionalisme Eropa muncul disebabkan oleh faktor-faktor sebagai berikut.

a. Munculnya paham rasionalisme dan romantisme.

b. Munculnya paham aufklarung dan kosmopolitanisme.

c. Terjadinya revolusi Prancis.

d. Reaksi atau agresi yang dilakukan oleh Napoleon Bonaparte.

Tujuan Nasionalisme

Pada dasarnya nasionalisme yang muncul dibanyak negara memiliki tujuan sebagai berikut.

a. Menjamin kemauan dan kekuatan mempertahankan masyarakat nasional melawan musuh dari luar sehingga melahirkan semangat rela berkorban.

b. Menghilangkan Ekstremisme ( tuntutan yang berlebihan ) dari warga negara ( individu dan kelompok ).

Akibat Nasionalisme

Nasionalisme yang muncul di beberapa negara membawa akibat yang beraneka ragam. Akibat munculnya nasinalisme di beberapa negara adalah sebagai berikut.

a. Timbulnya negara nasional ( national state )

b. Peperangan

c. Imprialisme

d. Proteksionisme

e. Akibat sosial

Konsep Lain yang Berhubungan dengan Nasionalisme

Beberapa konsep atau istilah yang memiliki kaitan atau berhubungan dengan nasionalisme antara lain sebagai berikut.

a. Patriotisme

Patriotisme adalah sikap dan perilaku seseorang yang dilakukan dengan penuh semangat rela berkorban untuk kemerdekaan, kemajuan, kejayaan, dan kemakmuran bangsa. Seseorang yang memiliki sikap dan perilaku patriotik ditandai oleh adanya hal-hal sebagai berikut.

1) Rasa cinta pada tanah air

2) Rela berkorban untuk kepentingan bangsa dan negara

3) Menempatkan persatuan, kesatuan, serta keselamatan bangsa dan negara di atas kepentingan pribadi dan golongan

4) Berjiwa pembaharu

5) Tidak mudah menyerah

Konsep patriotik tidak selalu terjadi dalam lingkup bangsa dan negara, tetapi juga dalam lingkup sekolah dan desa atau kampung. Kita mungkin menemukan seorang siswa atau masyarakat berbuat sesuatu yang mempunyai arti sangat besar bagi sekolah atau bagi lingkungan desa atau kampung.

b. Chauvinisme

Chauvinisme adalah rasa cinta tanah air yang berlebihan dengan mengagungkan bangsa sendiri dan merendahkn bangsa lain. Contoh Chauvinisme seperti yang dikemukakan oleh Adolf Hitler dengan kalimat Deutschland Uber Alles in der Welt ( Jerman di atas segala-galanya dalam dunia ). Slogan ini kadang masih dipakai di Jerman unutk memberi semangat pada atlet dalam bertanding. Inggris juga punya slogan Right or Wrong is My County. Demikian pula Jepang yang menganggap bangsanya merupakan keturunan Dewa Matahari.

c. Sukuisme

Sukuisme adalah suatu paham yang memandang bahwa suku bangsanya lebih baik dibandingkan dengan suku bangsa yang lain, atau rasa cinta yang berlebihan terhadap suku bangsa sendiri.

Rasa Kebangsaan

Rasa kebangsaan adalah salah satu bentuk rasa cinta yang melahirkan jiwa kebersamaan pemiliknya. Untuk satu tujuan yang sama, mereka membentuk lagu, bendera, dan lambang. Untuk lagu ditimpali dengan genderang yang berpengaruh dan trompet yang mendayu-dayu sehingga lahirlah berbagai rasa. Untuk bendera dan lambang dibuat bentuk serta warna yang menjadi cermin budaya bangsa sehingga menimbulkan pembelaan yang besar dari pemiliknya.

Dalam kebangsaan kita mengenal adanya ras, bahasa, agama, batas wilayah, budaya dan lain-lain. Tetapi ada pula negara dan bangsa yang terbentuk sendiri dari berbagai ras, bahasa, agama, serta budaya. Rasa kebangsaan sebenarnya merupakan sublimasi dari Sumpah Pemuda yang menyatukan tekad menjadi bangsa yang kuat, dihormati, dan disegani di antara bangsa-bangsa di dunia.

Wawasan Nusantara dalam kehidupan nasional yang mencakup kehidupan politik, ekonomi, sosial budaya dan pertahanan keamanan harus tercermin dalam pola pikir, pola sikap, serta pola tindak yang senantiasa mengutamakan kepentingan bangsa dan Negara Kesatuan Republik Indonesia ( NKRI ) di atas kepentingan pribadi atau golongan.

Wawasan Nusantara menjadi nilai yang menjiwai segenap peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku pada setiap strata di seluruh wilayah negara, sehingga menggambarkan sikap dan prilaku, paham, serta semangat kebangsaan atau nasionalisme yang tinggi merupakan identitas atau jati diri bangsa Indonesia.

Ikatan niai-nilai kebangsaan yang selama ini terpatri kuat dalam kehidupan bangsa Indonesia yang merupakan pengejawantahan dari rasa cinta tanah air, bela negara, serta semangat patriotisme bangsa mulai luntur dan longgar bahkan hampir sirna. Nilai-nilai budaya gotong royong, kesediaan untuk saling menghargai, dan saling menghormati perbedaan, serta kerelaan berkorban untuk kepentingan bangsa yang dahulu melekat kuat dalam sanubari masyarakat yang dikenal dengan semangat kebangsaannya sangat kental terasa makin menipis.

Semangat Kebangsaan

Pengertian semangat kebangsaan atau nasionalisme, merupakan perpaduan atau sinergi dari rasa kebangsaan dan paham kebangsaan. Dengan semangat kebangsaan yang tinggi, kekhawatiran akan terjadinya ancaman terhadap keutuhan dan kesatuan bangsa akan dapat dielakkan. Dari semangat kebangsaan akan mengalir rasa kesetiakawanan sosial, semangat rela berkorban, dan dapat menumbuhkan jiwa patriotisme. Rasa kesetiakawanan sosial akan mempertebal semangat kebangsaan suatu bangsa. Semangat rela berkorban adalah kesediaan untuk berkorban demi kepentingan yang besar atau demi negara dan bangsa telah mengantarkan bangsa Indonesia untuk merdeka. Bagi bangsa yang ingin maju dalam mencapai tujuannya, selain memiliki semangat rela berkorban, juga harus didukung dengan jiwa patriotik yang tinggi. Jiwa patriotik akan melekat pada diri seseorang, manakala orang tersebut tahu untuk apa mereka berkorban.

Paham Kebangsaan

Paham kebangsaan merupakan pemahaman rakyat serta masyarakat terhadap bangsa dan negara Indonesia yang diproklamasikan kemerdekaannya pada tanggal 17 Agustus 1945. Uraian rinci tentang paham kebangsaan Indonesia sebagai berikut.

Pertama, “atas rahmat Allah Yang Maha Kuasa” pada 17 Agustus !945, Bersamaan dengan proklamasi kemerdekaan Republik Indonesia lahirlah sebuah bangsa yaitu “Bangsa Indonesia”, yang terdiri atas bermacam-macam suku, budaya, etnis, dan agama.

Kedua, bagaimana mewujudkan masa depan bangsa ? Pembukaan Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 telah mengamanatkan bahwa perjuangan bangsa Indonesia telah mengantarkan rakyat Indonesia menuju suatu negara yang merdeka, bersatu, berdaulat, adil, dan makmur. Uraian tersebut adalah tujuan akhir bangsa Indonesia yaitu mewujudkan sebuah masyarakat yang adil dan makmur. Untuk mewujudkan masa depan bangsa Indonesia menuju ke masyarakat yang adil dan makmur, pemerintah telah melakukan upaya-upaya melalui program pembangunan nasional baik fisik maupun nonfisik.

Sumber : www.isnainimurti.wordpress.com