Ideology, which is defined by A.S Hornby as “a set of ideas that form the basis of an economic or political theory or that are held by particular group or person”, is very significant, indeed vital, for the survival of a nation because it gives it a distinct national identity, pride, and strength that can inspire it to achieve its social and political goals.
The founding fathers of the Republic Indonesia realized that a national ideology is indispensable in determining the social and political development of a state. With the approach of independence in 1945, the Indonesian people needed a national ideology that could unite, motivate, and mobilize them to work together to achieve the goals which independence would bring within their grasp.
Before Indonesian independence, the representatives of the Muslim Nationalists and the leaders of the secular nationalists were confronted with several major ideological questions: what was the philosophical basis needed for a free state of Indonesia to satisfy the aspiration of its multi-religious groups and all the political trends existing within it? What kind of a national ideology was to be employed to maintain national unity, integrity, and stability in an independence Indonesia? Islamic ideology? Secular ideology? Was there any other alternative acceptable to both?
Let us take a close look at the composition of the membership of the investigation body. According to Prawoto Mangkusasmito account, of its 68 members only 15 (about 20%) were Muslim Nationalists who really voiced Islamic political interest while the majority (80%), were secular nationalists. This indicates that political power was not balanced between the Muslim nationalists and the secular nationalists in investigating body.
The political discussions between Muslim and secular nationalist regarding all matters relating to the establishment of a free a state proceeded well enough, except for the debate on the philosophical basis and ideology of the state was addressed, however, the ideological clash between the two groups became sharp and heated, especially between the Muslim nationalists faction and the Christian nationalists group. Since it inevitably involved religious sentiments. The representatives of the traditionalist and the modernist Muslim were firmly united against the secular nationalists in the political debates in the investigating body sessions.
The founding fathers of the Republic Indonesia realized that a national ideology is indispensable in determining the social and political development of a state. With the approach of independence in 1945, the Indonesian people needed a national ideology that could unite, motivate, and mobilize them to work together to achieve the goals which independence would bring within their grasp.
Before Indonesian independence, the representatives of the Muslim Nationalists and the leaders of the secular nationalists were confronted with several major ideological questions: what was the philosophical basis needed for a free state of Indonesia to satisfy the aspiration of its multi-religious groups and all the political trends existing within it? What kind of a national ideology was to be employed to maintain national unity, integrity, and stability in an independence Indonesia? Islamic ideology? Secular ideology? Was there any other alternative acceptable to both?
Let us take a close look at the composition of the membership of the investigation body. According to Prawoto Mangkusasmito account, of its 68 members only 15 (about 20%) were Muslim Nationalists who really voiced Islamic political interest while the majority (80%), were secular nationalists. This indicates that political power was not balanced between the Muslim nationalists and the secular nationalists in investigating body.
The political discussions between Muslim and secular nationalist regarding all matters relating to the establishment of a free a state proceeded well enough, except for the debate on the philosophical basis and ideology of the state was addressed, however, the ideological clash between the two groups became sharp and heated, especially between the Muslim nationalists faction and the Christian nationalists group. Since it inevitably involved religious sentiments. The representatives of the traditionalist and the modernist Muslim were firmly united against the secular nationalists in the political debates in the investigating body sessions.
0 comment(s):
Post a Comment