An Outline of Global Citizenship

June 16, 2008

Qusthan Abqaryi

“The arrival of world citizenship is no longer merely a phantom, though we are still far from achieving it. State citizenship and world citizenship form a continuum which already shows itself, at least, in outline formii

-Jürgen Habermas-

Habermas’ thesis above is very interesting. It has been tested in the experience of Europeans within the European Union. Habermas’ saying appears when we look at the global problems which United Nation has been trying to solve, such as global warming, global poverty, HIV/Aids and so on. Perhaps the idea about global or worldiii citizenship can bring something usefull for that issues. The issue of world citizenship may be appear on its legal or technical sense in much more than 20 years but it does not mean that we can not discuss its moral obligation now. The thesis directly relates to some global issues that we face now and in the next few decades, like nation-state, global warming, global poverty, HIV/Aids, youths and others. All of those issues embed on globalization process. I will examine some issues here but not at all because some of other issues are stand out of the interest of this paper. It presumably that our next 20 years will not only connected to those superficial (not mean to undermind them) issues but also has to consider about the outline of world citizenship in this short space. But before we reach it, I should examine Indonesia’s experience as one type of vantage point to reach towards the global form of citizenship – in a manner reminding what Habermas said 13 years ago.

Is Indonesia a Nation or United Nations?

Indonesia is a rich country with large archipelago. Each big islands has abundant natural resources. The society consists of many ethnic groups or sub-nations. Both of those two terms imply to different consequences. On the one hand, ethnic groups means that all cultural differences which exist refer to one identity whose name is Negara Kesatuan Republik Indonesia (the One and United Republic of Indonesia as our nation is also called). On the other hand, sub-nations means that all cultural differences which exist do not refer to one destination. It compatibles with the words suku bangsa in Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian language) even Indonesian-English Dictionary does not admitted it. Another problem come here. Bahasa Indonesia made Indonesia as nation but it does not happen otherwise. Indonesia, as a nation, did not make Bahasa Indonesia. It shows by the ordinary language which uses in every provinces in Indonesia. People who live in each provinces do not use Bahasa Indonesia as an ordinary language except for formal interests. Bahasa Indonesia declared as united language since Sumpah Pemuda (Youth Oath) in 1928.

Sumpah Pemuda brought a greath implication which was inventing common consciousness to made united nations. Some founding fathers like Soekarno, Moehammad Hatta, Sutan Sjahrir, and Tan Malaka agreed to make united nations whose name is Indonesia. They choosed Soekarno (from Javanese sub-nation which is the majority in Indonesia) as the first president who led the non block movement of Asian and African countries during the Cold War; Melayu (from Melayu sub-nation which being minority in Indonesia but has great numbers in Sumatera and Borneo) as common formal language which later being Bahasa Indonesia; and Pancasila as the philosophical basis all at onces weltanchauung of the state. These three entities never seen as onekind of unique consensus which have been made by the founding fathers.

Soekarno and Muhammad Yamin (another founding father) recommended Pancasila as philosophical, political, sociological and theological consensus for Indonesia. Pancasila is constructed from two Sanskrit words: panca means five; and sila means principle. Pancasila consists of (1) Ketuhanan yang Maha Esa (Belief in the one and only God); (2) Kemanusiaan yang Adil dan Beradab (Just and civilized humanity); (3) Persatuan Indonesia (The unity of Indonesia); (4) Kerakyatan yang Dipimpin oleh Hikmat Kebijaksanaan dalam Permusyawaratan/Perwakilan (Democracy guided by the inner wisdom in the unanimity arising out of deliberations amongst representatives); (5) Keadilan Sosial bagi Seluruh Rakyat Indonesia (Social justice for the whole of the people of Indonesia).

Pancasila was born legally on June 1st, 1945 when Soekarno gave it to the PPKI (Independence Preparatory Committee). Following this history, we also can say that Pancasila was one of the fruits of the nation-state project. We know that the idea of a nation-state became popular in the last century and Indonesia adopted it. But many sub-nations or ethnic groupsiv in present-day Indonesia would never have otherwise, for their lack of common roots, built a single nation-state. Soekarno based his argument on Renan’s idea about nation which may as such only share one common denominator or commonality: the experience of being colonized.

This paper especially wants to explore the impact to the youth of Soekarno and other founding fathers’ project of nation-state. From this exploration we will find that youths should grab the chance to get involved in the governance process. Why should they do so? Because it is absolutely impossible to think that older politicians and bureaucrats would otherwise offer them the opportunity for free. Young people should think about taking up positions in the governance process. The energies of the young should not be relegated just to street action in protest movements. Their energy can be a considerable guarantee against corruption. This extraordinary crime is embedded in contemporary Indonesian society. To solve it, we need good governance which is aided in case young people can get involved in it. Otherwise we may need global more than national citizenship.

MTV Generation

Globalization has been influencing so many aspect of human life. The youth remain the group which most potentially involved in this globalization process. They are young; energetic; less experienced; more emotional; still shaping their self-identity; and have bigger passion to learn. On the other hand, young people are often the victims of globalization such as human trafficking, free sex, hacking, crackingv, and other crimes until terrorism.

Some corporations are using globalization to expand their business web. In this point of view, the MTV has benefited much of it. MTV has made its own generation, called the MTV Generation. Joshua Meyrowitz analyzed the MTV Generation to be of two kinds. First of all he called them as the generation of the age of aegism. These generations tend to exploit their ability and agility as soon as possible. In my opinion, the consequences go too far: (1) The youth will remain premature in their way of thinking; (2) they could loose their time to learn normally; (3) they often want to work earlier. These days, we always find under-age laborers, and trafficking. Secondly, Meyrowitz calls this a generation with no sense of place. Such a generation does not have a national identity. Their identities are just as generations of MTV viewers. National borders cannot hold back the youngsters’ big passion to act like their patron. In short, their ‘nation’ is MTV.

In Indonesia, MTV generations are embedded in gaul communities. Gaul youth likes to hang out in the mall, at the shopping center, restaurant and night club. They always position freedom as their main argument. They do not realize that they are just fighting for a wrong sense of freedom. Gaul youth only wants to free from parental, social and cultural constraints. Freedom from is not a genuine freedom. Genuine freedom is freedom forvi.

How to see this phenomenon? We shall not see it just as their own problems. This underestimates the problem itself. Gaul youth, or globally known as the MTV Generation, is not a singular entity. It has its own structure. We can clearly see the structure in the frame of history. Every policy which has been used by each nation obviously would be the superstructure of its society. Law, religion, and aesthetic, are just some examples of superstructure which control citizens of a nation. In short, some preferences that available at the present time are not stand by itself. It means that governments whom has been allowing the expansion of MTV to their country is the main subject who has to be responsible for the phenomenon of MTV Generation. On the other hand, the government whom does not have appropriate cultural strategy also responsible for the existence of MTV generation. So, adults cannot totally blame the youth for they preferences.

MTV Generations is onekind of cultural phenomenon. Cultural phenomenon does not always be onekind of culture. We need some, borrowing C. A. van Peursen’s terminology, ‘cultural strategy’, if you like it. Unfortunately we cannot generalize the formula. It is really a global-cultural phenomenon but it clearly accommodates some local aspects. But it is a totally different case, when we see members of MTV Generation to meet in a global event. We cannot differentiate between them at the first sight. They absolutely look alike wherever they came from. Maybe just ethnic difference makes them different from each others.

I probably could say that managing cultural strategy is very difficult. Because Indonesia consists of so many sub-nations which using different language. I just can say that government shall allow different kind system of education based on each local needs. But the government does contrary by impose Ujian Nasional (national examination/UN) with insensible criteria on the standar of graduation. Student on elementary school in Iboih, Sabang, We Island, Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam as such; does not need UN to their future but they need how to manage tourism as well as possible and how to prevent sea gardens from any kind of natural neither nurtural destructions. It simply because Iboih has great potentialities and there are no connections between UN and its natural resources.

However, MTV Generations necessitates government political will about cultural strategy to solve it. Hence the urgency of good governance. Governments must let people to be involved in the governance process. Yet this does not mean a minimal state just like the libertarian sense of idea. We still need some kind of a strong state that still has the power and commitment to protect its citizens. For Indonesia, this does not mean we need a New Order authoritarian regime.

About Indonesian Citizenship

Indonesia consists of so many different ethnic groupsvii and cultures. These ethnicities and cultures had great capitals to construct a nation. Unfortunately Indonesia has too much experiences of horizontal conflict. They range place from the Old Order regime through the New Order regime and until contemporary Reformation regime. In May 1998, there was chaos in Jakarta. At least 1.000 people died and many ethnic Chinese womenviii were raped by uncontrolled mass. Tracks of business areas used by ethnic Chinese were burned, and terror and fear coloured the mood.

We can reach one point within this chaos that bears a connection with the issue of citizenship. There still exists a dichotomy between “native”, “outsider clan”ix and “immigrant”. In the May 1998 case, Tionghoa clans were positioned in practice as immigrants. Although they are legally have Indonesian citizens, they have been treated on the contrary. This obviously put them in an unequal position compared with other citizens. But we can get the answer by now when the Reformation are processing. Some of the Tionghoa businessman get caught on some corruption cases. We see how the Tionghoa clans lives very exclusive only in their communities as akin they lived in the New Order regimex.

Another contemporary case also came from Pilkadaxi case. Most candidates often campaign for a putra daerah to be the governor, mayor or regent. At this point we must ask some questions. First of all, in the global age, how we can differ between native and non-native citizens? Especially in Indonesia, after the transmigration project of the New Order regime, there are too many people that moved out from their native provinces or even island: from East Java to Lampung in Sumatra; from Central Java to Central Kalimantan in Borneo; from West Java to Papua as such. On the other hand, Jakarta as the only capital city of Indonesia is still charming in the eyes of villager which rife everywhere in Indonesia from Sabang to Merauke. It raises the number of people moving to Jakartaxii. It also makes cross sub-nations married which implies cultural intersection within the single family. That is absolutely needed for the Indonesian nation-state project. The clans can no longer claim that they only represent one sub-nation. Nor can this be claimed by those people who try to profit from horizontal conflicts.

Secondly, is there any political will from the Government to shares economical growth that has all too often been concentrated in Java? Sumatra, Kalimantan, Sulawesi and Papua are still positioned as ‘a group of mine center islands’ without considering their prosperity. Aceh in New Order regime as such, well-known as the greatest producer of liquid gas in Indonesia, only received 5% from the whole financial benefit of its liquid processing. The benefits of economic growth did not trickle down to the grass roots level. Hundreds of families whom live around Arun Companyxiii are still trapped in the veil of poverty.

Third, are there some quality assurances if we choose a native man is better than a non-native as a Pilkada candidate? Being native does not mean he or she has a better vision or knowledge about the district or its management. Local politics often claim to have local wisdom. But mostly candidates do not know exatcly about the local wisdom. Local wisdom often positioned as width-range term which connected with the local aspects of one area without any full comprehension about the existence of every goods in that area. I define local wisdom here as every goods that have been exist in one area which usefull to support the people’s life and keep its balancing with nature. So local wisdom should be held by every candidate, including the non-native ones, in Pilkada.

From these two short cases we can see that formal citizenship still remains problematic in Indonesia, or the inter-sub-nations or inter-ethnics sentiments. This is my concern in the discussion about the origins and continued basis of Indonesian nationality. On the other hand, an interesting contribution to citizenship comes from Robert N. Bellah. Bellah said that there were three stages of citizenship. First of all “citizenship is virtually coextensive with “getting involved” with one’s neighbors for the good of the community”xiv. Secondly: “Citizenship in this second understanding of politics is more difficult and discordant for the individual than in the ideal of community consensus. It means entering the complicated, professional, yet highly personal, business of adversarial struggles, alliances building, and interest bargaining. It requires dealing with others from quite different consensual communities”xv. Thirdly, Bellah writes that “the citizenship that attends the third type of politics is experienced more symbolically and less in the practices of everyday life than citizenship of the first two sorts”xvi. These three stages of citizenship which provided by Bellah appear on Indonesia’s experience. Let us see it!

The first short of Bellah’s stage appears on Pancasila as the consensus of Indonesia as one community. It can no longer be rejected. Unfortunately there are some groups who insist to use one kind of specific religionxvii as a forced consensus basis of Indonesian community. I disregard their struggle because we cannot compare the religions which co-exist in Indonesia by measuring one from the point of view of the other. For example Islam cannot be measured by Christian standards, whereas vice versa Pancasila accepts many monotheistic world religions which are thus incommensurable to most Indonesians.

Bellah’s second kind of citizenship pays attention to the role of professional and situated identities in the process of strengthening primordial sense. Makassar merchants must cooperate with Minangkabau ones although they come from different sub-nations. This professional solidarity is often much stronger than any primordial ethnic sensibilities. Primary here are based on economical motives. We know that economical interest often becomes primary preference for everyone, especially merchants. In the frame of philosophy of human, it called as Homo oeconomicus. He is the one whom supports classical maxim homo homini lupus.

The last of kinds of citizenship identified by Bellah is a sophisticated one. Here citizenship has been positioned just as one kind of symbol in our – borrowing Anthony Giddens’ words – ‘run-away world’. It is relevant to my earlier discussion about the youth, but this is especially relevant also to our common needs such as to reduce global poverty, global warming, starvation etc. Race, sex, religion and nationality are just starting points to get to know each others. Race and sex are given. So are religion and nationality even if they can change along the way. Who can choose his or her own race and sex? These entities are so to say arbitrary as we cannot reject or choose them. Our preferences only appear during our lives. As one humankind; we share the same the earth; the same air to breath; the same water to drink; and the same earth to live; we should run this planet as well as possible for the greatest happiness of the greatest number of our global citizensxviii.

In the case of Indonesia, I believe that it probably needs at least one more century to build a stronger nation-state. It will be happen via cross sub-national marriages subsequently ‘mixed-sub nations (or one mixed nation) clans’ is going to be created. They will just be as Indonesian citizens as any others, with their partly local, partly national culture – however without maybe singular attendance to any specific traditional sub-national culture. But on the other hand, if the children of these mixed peoples loose the cultures of their ancestors, Indonesia may loose some of its cultural capital in the traditional sense that we are used to view it. This is the dilemma for Indonesia.

Democratic Citizenship in Indonesia

What is citizenship? How are citizenship and good governance connected each other? How can Indonesia engage and enable young people to participate constructively in the governance process? These are some last important questions for this short paper. Dahrendorf states that:

“Citizenship is, to begin with, an idea which finds its expression in law, in that sense a legal idea. It describes the rights, usually the privileges, of a category of men living in cities – adults, taxpayers, owners of property – as against countryfolk, the propertyless, minors, women and the like. Citizenship creates a Rechtsgemeinschaft, a community under law; it makes those who belong a part of the system of rules which protects them from each other and, by creating a sort of club, from outsiders”xix.

He also said that “citizenship, at least in modern version, was not only linked to the development of larger political entities, nations, but it also replaced loyalties which bound men to specific groups, guilds, corporations, universities, by generalized loyalties”xx. But those two definitions are not sufficient enough for the Indonesian case. I do believe that citizenship is not just about legal idea and generalized loyalties but also needs emotional cohesion. Soekarno relatively succeeded because he sharpened the – at the time – shared feeling of some nations of being colonized. Today Indonesia does not have that feeling anymore. Maybe neo-colonization exists but it appears as in forms difficult to fathom at grassroots by people who live it.

The emotional feeling of being one nation has been broken by the New Order regime. It is hard to rebuild it in the Reformation era. President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Vice President Jusuf Kalla (SBY & JK) should guarantees the economical and political rights of each Indonesian citizen. If their Government fails to increase citizens’ wealth, it must be paralyzes the Indonesia’s nation building. Aceh and Papua cases supported previous sentence. Abundant natural resources does not imply to the people’s welfare in each provinces.

Every citizen would loves to be treated by their government as just as possible. But how we can ensure a government will act justly? It is impossible in Indonesia if it is still lead by the old elite. They are trapped within ewuh pakewuhxxi sense of feeling. Just citizenship always needs good governance. We should empower all citizens especially the youth to ensure good governance. They should be involved in the governance process. Why? Hardly because their age makes them less susceptible to corruption, but to increase their sense of duty towards the Nation! The most possible institution to provide them a chance of participation are non-governmental organizations (NGO’s).

Young people should leave behind the corruption culture of Indonesian bureaucracy. Indonesian bureaucracy can be cleared from corruption if it takes place a fundamental process called as cutting generations process. This process needs to shot through the bureaucracy. On the other hand, this process also needs the division of powers between the executive, legislative and judicative. Actual division of powers which delivers by the state never succeded to guarantee check and balance among each subject of powers. Reformation of bureaucracy issue only become onekind of processing reformation which is left behind. I doubt the reformation of bureaucracy will be happen unless there is a systematic revolutionxxii in Indonesia which emphasizes the cutting generation process. So the idea about cutting generation process shall belong to the systematic revolution either reformation of bureaucracy.

Older elites in Indonesia have been considering this as a threat for their corrupted power. They campaign against for the inclusion of younger generations in the executive, legislative and judicial fields of the governance process. The young have been claimed to possess less experience than the older elites. Some political parties such as Golkar, PDI-Perjuangan, PPP, and Partai Demokrat do not want to give the chance for their younger politicians to appear at center stage. Other political parties such as PAN, PKS, PRD and Papernas have not yet been able to increase their younger politicians. PAN and PKS’ younger politicians are still controlled by the older politicians under a so called syuro system. PRD and Papernas can push their politicians, whom totally youths, to the front stage of national politics. Unfortunately PRD and Papernas are always alleged as wanting to bring about communist transformation in Indonesiaxxiii. These whole conditions totally like vicious circle.

In my opinion, the youth can involve in the good governance process if: (a) They have some clear visions about the nation and state; (b) They should not have any direct nor indirect relationship with the New Order regime to avoid ewuh pakewuh sense of feeling; (c) They do not involve in TNI (Indonesian Military Soldier/military institution). Because the military should be la Grande Muette (the silent giant) in the democratic society; (d) The youth should be an expert on reaching political consensusxxiv. It connected with the multicultural citizenship which exists in Indonesia.

Which Indonesia, whom should engage and enable youths to participate constructively in the governance processes? If Indonesia refers to the government and the political party, they never have serious political will to do it. So we can not expect them to do it. On the other hand, if Indonesia refers to the whole society, it can engage youths by the NGOs. NGOs were relative independent. NGOs still important for Indonesia although their images have been broke in the Reformation regime. In Sabang where I recently visited in Aceh province, I saw some NGOs, which run out by youth, trapped in corruption. This is another vicious circle for us to overcome the good governance. This example of NGOs proves that youth is no guarantee of being less corrupted, but the inclusion of youth is needed in governance to widen the legitimacy and support basis of government into demographic groups most representative of Indonesians today – the youth – and to bring in their fresh ideas and energy.

Globalization as a Determinant

In the contemporary era none can avoid the globalization process. How does globalization connect with citizenship? I started by posing this question and try to formulate an outline of global citizenship.

Giddens says that “globalization is really about the transformation of space and time. I define it as action at distance, and relate its intensifying over recent years to the emergence of means of instantaneous global communication and mass transportation”xxv. From Giddens’ definition we can draw some points. First, people cannot reject globalization because they live in the frame of space and time. Although admittedly, these entities, I mean space and time, have been transformed. Secondly, globalization can be a curse and a blessing at the same time. It depends on each and everyone’s own attitude and experiences. Thirdly, globalization is intensifying, visible as global communication and mass transportation which push people’s migration. These migrations were influencing private life choices and marriages, the availability of natural and human resources, and also citizenship.

Citizenship in the global era is problematic to the consumption-oriented MTV Generation. But on the other side, we have seen that threat of terrorism has increased the sense of nationalism – even chauvinism – in many countries. Actually we yet face some global equally real and urgent problems like global warming, global poverty, HIV/Aids, avian influenza, war and others. Our oil and gas resources decrease.

It is quite impossible to solve those problems wisely if we do not increase our global consciousness. Global citizenship means people are seen as the legal members of the earth and should get the same rights to live well. People in Africa do not deserve to starve, nor should people suffer from war, or HIV/Aids which can be prevented through global cooperation. Nor do people deserve to just get charity from Europe or America as compensations for the absorption of its natural resources like what have been happen in Papua. They have rights to live well like the people in the First World. We stand on the same earth. We breathe the same air. We drink the same water. And we die on the same ground. Can we still insist to let our humanity go? Of course we cannot.

Global citizenship theoretically leads to global justice. Global justice tends to undermine some nationals laws, which might be being potentially contradictory with it. But actually these contradictions only appear if we just consider about international justice. What we need is global justice and citizenship to protect everyone in this planet. This outline of global citizenship may look less convincing but like Gramsci told on his Lettere dal carcere (1937), “pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will”. And of course it needs critics and further development by us all. Habermas considers the urgency of global citizenship even he uses another terms.


i Student in Faculty of Philosophy, Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia. I would like to thanks to Firdaus, Suwisma, Christians, Febriel Buyung Sikumbang, Aryta Suzana, Asmi Yacub, Edwin Kawilarang, Chozin, Martadinata, Sonjoruri B. Trisakti, and Diah Nusantari whom helped me to preparing all needs to this conference. I specially thanks to Dr. Abbas Hamami Mintaredja, Dean Faculty of Philosophy, whom give me chance to represent the faculty. Earlier version of this paper has been presented in ISWI Conference, June 1st-10th, 2007, in Technische Universität (TU) Ilmenau, Thüringen, Germany. I thank to many comments in that conference. This paper have been made as guided-note for me when giving presentation as one participant lecturer in that conference. Another version can be reach at this link:

ii Jürgen Habermas, “Citizenship and National Identity: Some Reflections on the Future of Europe”, in Bryan S. Turner and Peter Hamilton (eds.), Citizenship: Critical Concepts (Volume II, London: Routledge, 1994), hal. 357.

iii I do not differ strictly between those two terms.

iv I refer to Aceh, Batak, Minangkabau, Javanese, Dayak, Bali, Makassar, Bugis, Papua and others for sub-nations. These sub-nations do not always represent some province in Indonesia. Sub-nation was well-known in Bahasa as suku bangsa. Other people will like to use ‘ethnic groups’ than ‘sub-nations’ for suku bangsa. I believe that my preference to use ‘sub-nations’ will give much more respects about the diversity which lay in Indonesia archipelago for many years.

v The youth were the agents for these two crimes (hacking and cracking). We must consider that Indonesia, especially Yogyakarta, has one of the largest numbers of hackers and crackers. For further information about this, see: BPPM UGM Balairung, “Jejaring Dunia Maya”, BALAIRUNG Journal, 38th edition, 2004.

vi Some people believe that freedom from identically with negative freedom and freedom for identically with positive freedom.

vii I prefer to use ‘nation’ better than ‘ethnic’ for the Indonesian case. However, the Indonesian Government always claims that they should be seen as suku bangsa (sub-nations). The common formula is “Indonesia is one nation that consists of many sub-nations”. These sub-nations produce very different ethnics. So I should follow Government’s wording to avoid any legal misunderstanding.

viii Ethnic Chinese are referred to in Indonesia as ‘Tionghoa’ people.

ix Tionghoa clans or descent groups have been positioned only as second-class citizens.

x For instance, their exclusivity is they never could melting down together with other sub nations. Even their business get so many benefits from the New Order regime.

xi Pilkada is the short name of Pemilihan Kepala Daerah or Elections of Local Heads. These can cover elections for gubernur (governor); walikota (mayor); and bupati (regent). They started since Reformation regimes.

xii It would be much better if urbanization were a processual move from village to city. Unfortunately in Indonesia, urbanization just appears as the migration of villagers to a densely populated city, with little official planning involved or controlling it.

xiii Arun Company refers to the US based Exxon Mobil that has been the single largest foreign operator in joint venture with Indonesian counterpart in oil and liquid gas production in Aceh.

xiv Robert N. Bellah, “Citizenship”, in Bryan S. Turner and Peter Hamilton (eds.), Citizenship: Critical Concepts (Volume II, London: Routledge, 1994), pp. 244.

xv Robert N. Bellah, ibid, pp. 245.

xvi Robert N. Bellah, ibid, pp. 246.

xvii They actually provide only single doctrinal interpretation about this specific religion in each groups. It means that their struggle should be suspected only base on political and economical interest because every religions mostly provide more than one doctrinal interpretation.

xviii This ‘the greatest happiness of the greatest number of global citizens’ does not refer to the utilitarian sense of theory. Because utilitarian sense only contextually refers to the state. But my phrase is ‘the greatest happiness of the greatest number of global citizens’ which means that we must consider the needs of everyone living on this planet.

xix Ralf Dahrendorf, “Citizenship and Beyond: The Social Dynamics of an Idea”, in Bryan S. Turner and Peter Hamilton (eds.), Citizenship: Critical Concepts (Volume II, London: Routledge, 1994), pp. 292.

xx Ralf Dahrendorf, ibid, pp. 304.

xxi Ewuh pakewuh sense is the feeling that you owe to someone who helped you in the past. So you should protect that person to pay his or her earlier goodness. This feeling is part of Javanese culture. It is visible in the judicial process regarding former President Soeharto’s corruption. Too many politicians, elites, attorneys, and judges feel ‘owned’ by Soeharto’s past New Order authoritarian regime.

xxii For further information about this process available on Lukman Hakim, Revolusi Sistemik [Yogyakarta: HMI (MPO) Cabang Malang cooperated with Kreasi Wacana, 2003].

xxiii New Order regime made Indonesian people fear to the communist issues. Factually, New Order regime just did black campaign for the PRD as the transformation of PKI (Indonesian Communist Party). Though Papernas was born in the Reformation regime they also alleges as the communist party like PRD.

xxiv PRD and Papernas have three previous points except this last point. Those political parties cannot reach any consensus as sophisticated as what other political party. Golkar as such, after Reformation 1998, could be survive even so many warrants whom would like to disperse it; because they able to build mutual consensus among many parties.

xxv Anthony Giddens, Beyond Left and Right: The Future of Radical Politics (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1998), hal 4.

Tentang Penulis

Qusthan Abqary - I am a lecturer and teach some subjects such as Ethics and Social Awareness, Corporate Governance and Ethics, Business Ethics, Critical and Creative Thinking and others. My research interests are political philosophy, ethics, peace, and war.

No Comments

Leave a Reply