Unity in diversity?

The concept of unity is now new. It has existed since thousand of years ago when people started to adopt tribalism to unite the clan against the common enemy. Unfortunately in the process it is the oppression, subjugation and terrorism that strike terror in the midst of many, creating a superficial unity while widening the chasm between the different groups.

When we were still in the primary schools in Indonesia, we were taught that the reason of the Dutch domination over our vast archipelago is the lack of unity among our independence fighters. During the time when President Suharto was in power, there is a huge billboard on Jalan Thamrin that read “Persatuan dan kesatuan adalah kunci utama pembangunan” (Unity is the main key towards development).

It is for this unity that President Suharto set up to oppressed the differing views with the country. Those with opposing opinions were labeled as the anti government, pointing to the fact that they have to be removed to maintain the unity of the state. Under the doctrine of Pancasila, some Islamic and slightly leftist parties were outlawed. There was no more unity in diversity, but rather to kill the diversity under the name of unity. Different political aspirations and opinions were silenced.

For the sake of unity again, President Suharto embarked on assimilation programs aimed to integrate the Chinese into the Indonesian culture. They were forced to remove their Chinese names and adopt local names, prohibited from celebrating Chinese New Year and disallowed Mandarin to be taught in the schools. Yes, the new breed of Chinese Indonesian is more Indonesianize in the way they speak, think and behave. But does that means that they are integrated into the intended culture? The May 1998 Riot suggested otherwise.

Even within religion that supposed to unite people, there were many divisions within it. There variety, multi color religion portrayed the beauty of diversity within the huge framework. Many religious groups think that they are the right ones and constantly lashed out at the others. One Islam is a fantasy. The global Islamic community today is split into two big groups: the Sunni and Syiah. Within Sunni itself, there is Ahamadiah (subdivided into Lahore and Qadian).

In Indonesia, the mainstream Muslim community is divided into Muhammadiyah and Nahdatul Ulama. Each one of them claimed that there is only One Islam and they are the representation of it. Because of this reason as well the Ahmadiyah movement in Indonesia is declared heretics few years ago with its followers faced harassment and prosecution from the mainstream groups.

Similar thing applies to Christianity. In the past, they tried to spread the gospel to the infidels, barbarian and heretics in the uncivilized worlds. They sailed from Europe to Asia and Africa to convert those who already had their own beliefs, be it pagan, ancestor worship or Islam into Christianity. People like Fransiscus Xavier and Ludwig van Nomensen went to South East Asia to convert people. Some went in peace but most of them come with sword.

The people of Nias faced brutal oppression. Their places of worships were destroyed, statues of their gods were burnt and some of them sent back to Europe to be placed in museum. So much of preaching the Love of their God.

In the global economy, the unity comes in the form of globalization, where there will be the integration of economies, culture and other aspects into unified system. This unity is portrayed to be the new gospel of economy, the new way to redefine our economy and modern way of living.

If we look closer, things are not that glamorous. The Western countries tried to expand their hegemony over the developing ones, replacing their traditional culture with MacDonaldlization. Globalization, creating a borderless world, forced countries to adopt a uniform policy under the supervision International Monetary Fund and World Bank that make the weaker under the subjugation of developed countries.

Similar to the concept of democracy, unity is another ideal that provide justification for many leaders to act in accordance to their interest. We should not view differing opinions and view as a crack in the unity, but rather as something that enhance the unity.