Complexity of Writing History in Post-Suharto Era

by Faqihuddin Abdul Kodir

History is not about facts of the past rather perspectives of present people about those facts for the benefits of establishing their future. Suharto was true in seeing history for building his perspective of the future of Indonesia; one nation, unity in diversity, economic development, national stability, and social prosperity of all citizens. For these reasons, history should be written in a single perspective owned by the government. Sukarno did the same for his own perspective of the future of Indonesia. The leaders of Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) also would likely do the same if they took over the power. This was the critical historical moment of modern Indonesian people having learnt that the truth is one and the source of the truth also one.

At the end of Suharto’s era, after thirty years seizing the power, people had been able to delegitimize the source of “the truth” which was his government. Reformation era following Suharto’s fall from the power in 1999 opened eyes of many people to look at their own sources of the truth. Without any single legitimized source of the truth, each group of Indonesian people spread “their own truth” from “their own source”. Historiography in this period becomes no longer monolithic and nor in single perspective. At least, in the account of Klinken, there have been emerged four historiographical streams in Indonesia: (1) Orthodox nationalist stream, (2) Societal historiographies at the national level, (3) Regional ethno-nationalisms, and (4) Local sources of historiography. These streams provide not only many facts about the same event, but many perspectives, many historical interpretations, and of course many truths.

From these multi-perspectives of writing history, we Indonesian people begin to learn many truths from many sources. At least, we rely not only on government to know and spread our national history. Although each people believe in their own resource, we Indonesian people attempt to negotiate ‘truths’ among us and learn each from other. However, is really the truth many or only one? I think historical fact about certain thing is single and has only one truth, while interpretation of the fact varies, comes from multi-perspectives, and proposes many truths. We will learn more from interpretation rather than from the fact. However the power, anyone owns it, tends to limit the perspectives for its own interests and at the cost of other perspectives owned by people. Unless we control the power, we may back to the era that the source of the truth is only one and will scare us again as we experienced in the era of Suharto. The power here is not necessary the government, but also mass-media and even religion.

Readings:
1. Gerry Van Klinken, “The Battle for History after Suharto”, in Mary Zurbuchen ed., Beginning to Remember. pp. 233-258.