The Spirit of Nationalism and The Silent Separatism

Irsyad Zamjani

In this age of globalization, the idea of nationalism seems outdated. Social theorists have argued that the nation-state's boundaries, which were previously seen as nationalism's political sphere, have become less relevant (see Arjun Appadurai, 2001 or Saskia Sassen, 2004).

The new world political order is now more interestingly talking about regions rather than states and citizens rather than nations. Nationalism is eventually reduced to the level of celebratory rituals to reduce the boredom of everyday life. Now, nationalistic sentiments are only evoked when extraordinary events occur.

Issues such as the Cepu oil block dispute (with a multinational), the Defense Cooperation Agreement (DCA) controversy and the abuse of women migrant laborers working abroad, while independence anniversary celebrations also help to notch up nationalistic feelings. But these feelings fade away as time goes by. Hence, scholars like Michael Billig refer to nationalism as a banal ideology.

The banality of nationalism appears to be manifest with two tendencies. First, the centrality of "otherness" in the process of formation of national identity. National identity is often based on antagonism against other nations or cultures. The history of nationalism of most postcolonial countries, like Indonesia, cannot be separated from historical struggles and resistance against overseas colonialism. To perceive your nationality one always takes an outward looking viewpoint, rather than an inward looking one.

Second, referring to Ben Anderson (1983), nationalism has been maintained by the elitist claim of something called "national interest." The elite group and politicians frequently exploit this term to legitimize their own interests. By contrast for the common people, the focal point of the national spirit is love and sincerity, without self-interest.

This patriotism, reflecting love of people or homeland, is often expressed in terms of emotional bonds of kinship, or affection for the motherland. We commonly use such terms as ibu pertiwi, tanah air, or tanah tumpah darah to describe a national entity named Indonesia.

Therefore, the term "national interest" is too far away from people's consciousness. The "national interest" is abstract in nature. Its interpretation has been contested amongst and won by elites. Moreover, it often creates a spatially-based problem of hierarchy. National interest is always identical with questions posed in Jakarta or issues which involve the role of Jakarta-based elites. "National interest" always defeats "local interest" which for most people seem to be the more concrete.

Those two questions; the centrality of otherness and the claim to represent national interest have frequently blurred an interesting phenomenon appearing in Indonesia, termed by Michael Hechter (1975) as internal colonialism. The kind of colonialism potentially exercised by anyone who holds power over the people of his own nation-state. We have been too successful, or distracted, to keep at the front of our minds the way in which the new order regime achieved this.

Our collective memory was acquainted with the Dutch as the sole colonizer, but the siren calls of an exaggerated view of national interest produced the plundering of the forests of Kalimantan, uncontrolled gold dredging in Papua and horrifying human tragedies in Aceh and East Timor (now Timor Leste). Unsurprisingly, once launched, no-one could stop the growth of ethnonationalism and separatism that then prospered in these areas.

Today we may consider corruption as a new form of internal colonialism. Corruption is also a form of plunder as well as the exploitation of the people's wealth. Within the context of permanent crisis, corruption is the ultimate betrayal of two national aspirations; democracy and national solidarity.

Commitment towards democracy has to do with commitment to a system in which the state officer is not more than the bearer of the sovereign people's mandate. This nation-state was not founded on the basis of absolute monarchy, justifying that all the wealth of the state should belong to the king, who would then have the right to share it with anyone he wishes.

On the contrary, the nation-state was founded on the basis of a system to ensure the maintenance of accountability, checks-and-balances and the principles of power-sharing. The constitution says that the wealth and resources of the state are to be utilized for the sake of the prosperity of the people.

The commitment to nationality requires a sense of national solidarity and values. Historian Otto Bauer, as cited by Sukarno, said that nationalism existed because of the feeling of common fortune. The greater the social and economical discrepancies, the less the sense of empathy with nation and national interest. Unfortunately corruption undermines and erodes such national feelings.

The next step arising from these circumstances leads to what I call silent separatism. This separatism does not take the form of armed struggle, but rather that of silent resistance. Unfortunately, this battle has already started.

We should learn from the results of the recent district and provincial elections held throughout the Indonesian regions. Almost all of these elections were won by the Golputs (the abstentions).

The victory of the abstentists is a warning. It is a sign that the nation-state is losing authority, trust and legitimacy in the eyes of its own citizens. The state seems not to be rooted in the same place where the will of the people is anchored.

To this extent, nationalism and the idea of the nation-state project need to be re-evaluated. As part of our reflections on the 63rd anniversary of Indonesian independence, this issue needs more serious discussion.

The writer is a researcher at the Center of Asian Studies (CENAS), Jakarta. He can be reached at zamjani@yahoo.com