A Look on Benedict Anderson's "The Idea of Power in Javanese Culture"

From wikipedia

I just re-read an article from the famous Benedict Anderson, "The Idea of Power in Javanese Culture."

Wow. If that article is totally correct, Indonesia is in deep trouble. Very deep.

The Differences

According to Anderson, there are 4 main differences between "Western" and Javanese concept of power (pp. 5 - 9): 

1) Abstract vs concrete

2) Heterogeneous sources vs homogeneous source

3) Limitless vs Zero-sum

4) Morally ambiguous vs Beyond Moral

For me #3 & #4 are the important ones. Why?

"Power is a zero-sum game" is the most extreme way of the essence of Gore Vidal's quote:

"It is not enough to succeed. Others must fail."

No wonder "Envy" is ALWAYS a big problem in Indonesia's bureaucracy.

If #3 is bad, #4 is even worse. With the logic "power is beyond moral," there is no legitimate or illegitimate power. In Anderson words "Power is." Yes, that's a period there. "Might is right" according to the Javanese Culture. That's why Soekarno freely used Adolph Hitler as an example of exercise of power, to the horror of the Western audiences, for him the concept of "morally correct power" is absurd, power is just power. (p. 17.) And speaking about Soekarno ...

Signs of Power

The Javanese also believed that uniting contradictions, opposites, and antagonizing ideas is the sign of power. That's why Soekarno promoted "Nasakom" that put that religion and communism under the same umbrella. (p. 15.) That's why Indonesian motto, Bhinneka Tunggal Ika, has slightly different meaning than E Pluribus Unum, in the sense that Indonesian motto actually pointed out that differences and unity is inseparable, while the American motto stressed that unity was reached DESPITE of differences. (Footnote in p. 15.)

In other words: Javanese have tendency to try impossible political moves. Yes, there is potential that this could actually achieve something that was previously thought as impossible, but there is also another possibility that it will end in fire, just like Soekarno's Nasakom.


Mandala
Another point that Anderson brought: the connection between Javanese concept of power and the concept of mandala from Indian culture (pp. 28 - 31).

Mandala or "Circle of Kings" is a political concept of state-management, whose basic tenets are:
1) Territory is fluid.
2) The State is defined by its center, not by its borders.
3) The power radiated from the center, to the periphery, so the center has to repeatedly assert its power against any competing power in its periphery.

That means for the Javanese, the concept of equality among all provinces, among all Indonesians is absurd. The center has to assert its domination over the "Sebrang," the peripheries. The primacy of the center is not to be questioned, the secondary status of the peripheries is its logical consequence.(p. 29.)

Conclusions

If Anderson is correct, than the Javanese culture is very prone to unhealthy competition, corruption, and incoherent political policies.  The non-Javanese people also have VALID reasons to be worried of Javanese domination.  Is this really the case? Hopefully not, since MOST Indonesians are Javanese. Hopefully even if Anderson analysis is true, the reality is not as gloom as my interpretation ...