Hanny Nadhirah
“Who gets to define Pancasila? Or more bluntly, siapa sih yang paling Pancasilais (who is the most Pancasilaist)? This question reminds us of Indonesia’s long history of monopolizing the interpretation of Pancasila, particularly under the Suharto regime, when it became an instrument of political control. Suharto’s famous claim, “Those who criticize me criticize Pancasila,” set the tone for silencing dissent and narrowing the space for diverse interpretations.
In response to this legacy and to reopen the conversation, a documentary film entitled “Pancasila is Me” was launched at the Unconference on Polarization and its Discontent in the Global South hosted by the Indonesian Consortium of Religious Studies (ICRS). Rather than offering a normative account of Pancasila’s importance of history, the film invites audiences to explore the multiple paradoxes that continue to shape its meaning in Indonesia’s evolving journey.
The unending question of Pancasila
The history of Pancasila has always been marked by tension between its unifying ideals and the political forces seeking to control its meaning. The monopolizing interpretation during the Suharto era has become highly contradictory to the nature of Pancasila, which was meant to be a foundation to unite the Indonesian people.
In its early roots, particularly during the Jakarta Charter debates—the seed of today’s Pancasila—compromises were made to reflect Indonesia’s diversity. Notably, seven words were removed from the first sila (“…with the obligation to carry out Islamic law for its adherents”) to make it more inclusive. There was an ongoing debate over the inclusivity of this national ideology, as the initial formulation had centered on Muslims while dismissing other religious communities. In other words, from the very beginning, the founding fathers intended Pancasila to be an inclusive ideology for all Indonesians. But over time, history shows that ruling elites, like Suharto, distorted this ideal and turned it into a political weapon.
Hence, the question “Who gets to define Pancasila?” has always been an unending discussion throughout its journey. When only one group holds the power to define Pancasila, it becomes a powerful tool over others. Just like what happened during the Suharto regime, the critical voices, opposition figures, and civil society activists were often branded anti-Pancasila and sometimes persecuted under the name of Pancasila.
Is polarization around Pancasila necessary?
How can Pancasila stop being monopolistic and return to its original, inclusive “nature”? How can Pancasila truly belong to the people, not just the elites? This is where some extent of polarization comes in. The concept of polarization, much like the interpretation of Pancasila itself, is elusive and highly debated. However, several groups argue that polarization “is inevitable and may even serve as a catalyst for democratic development.”
If we go by that understanding, then the answer is clear: Polarization around Pancasila is indeed necessary. Polarization is not inherently bad. As Hans Kundnani points out in the context of Europe, too little polarization has caused the center-left and center-right to blur together so much that they are nearly indistinguishable. And when the differences fade like that, democracy becomes weaker.
If we apply that analogy to Pancasila, arguably, we need a “healthy amount” of polarization —a condition where distinguishable interpretations can challenge one another and prevent monopolistic definitions. Conversely, if there is too little polarization, there is no meaningful contestation or checks and balances. Thus, this healthy amount of polarization allows Pancasila to maintain its inclusive nature, just like the founding fathers’ debates, where they were open to different perspectives.
Polarization: How much is too much?
So, to what extent is polarization around the meaning of Pancasila necessary when it comes to differences in thought or ideology?. After all, Indonesia is a democracy. But as the literature on polarization shows, polarization can sometimes go “too far” and shift into what scholars call “pernicious polarization.”
McCoy and Somer define pernicious polarization as the division of society into mutually distrustful political camps, where political identity becomes tightly bound to social identity. Arguably, in this stage of polarization, instead of just debating the interpretation of social justice within Pancasila, for example, groups begin to see each other as threats, where one side’s gain is automatically seen as the other’s loss.
There is a need for further research to understand which polarization is emerging in Indonesian contemporary issues. However, based on the “Pancasila is Me” documentary, there are already cases that could act as early seeds of harmful polarization if left unaddressed. For instance, the film highlights the case of the KPK (Corruption Eradication Commission) and the controversial tes kebangsaan or national insight test. Employees were forced to answer loyalty questions like “Do you choose your mother or Pancasila?” or “Do you choose the Qur’an or Pancasila?” Despite already passing prior nationalist screenings, 57 KPK employees were dismissed after failing this test. Many have argued that this was part of the ruling elite’s effort to weaken the KPK’s role in fighting corruption.
Another example comes from the credit union (CU) movement, which operates as a cooperative based on principles of justice and solidarity, distinct from conventional banking models. Despite being rooted in values that align with Pancasila, like fairness and community empowerment, CUs have been repeatedly challenged under banking laws, anti-money laundering regulations, fund transfer rules, and conventional insurance frameworks. This reflects how CUs are increasingly seen as a threat, not only to conventional financial actors but also to fellow entrepreneurs who view them with suspicion.
These examples from the documentary show how Pancasila, in some cases, is being used to undermine “the other side.” While these two cases alone may not yet signal full-blown pernicious polarization, they can be seen as early warning signs, where not only the state feels threatened by “critical” individuals, as in the KPK case, but where individuals begin to turn against fellow citizens, as seen in the CU case. These examples show the creeping danger of seeing dissent not as a necessary element of democracy, but as an existential threat, a hallmark of pernicious polarization.
Towards more inclusive Pancasila-is-me
The challenge today is to manage polarization wisely. We should celebrate diverse interpretations with understanding, not hate. When we welcome various groups to define Pancasila, we keep its spirit inclusive and democratic, just as it was meant to be since the beginning. As Agus Wahyudi from the Pancasila Studies Center says in the documentary, ‘Pancasila can be interpreted, understood, and redefined, as well as renewed according to context.’ And such a process is only possible when ‘healthy’ polarization takes place to ensure that Pancasila remains free from monopoly.