Page 111 - Demo

94Islam, Democracy and Human Rights in Contemporary Indonesiathe contrary, the use of an Islamic base was instead to strengthenthe position of Pancasila itself.According to Indonesian political observers, such asMunawir Sjadzali, there were %u201csome forms of development orshift in Natsir%u2019s outlook%u201d about Pancasila, from that which hestated in Pakistan to what he said in his speech at the ConstituentAssembly of the Republic of Indonesia in 1957 about the state%u2019sfoundation. This shift should be seen in the context of howNatsir interpreted Pancasila, and of how non-Muslim factionsunderstood it. Had the debates in the Constituent been closelyinvestigated, it would have been seen that the interpretations ofPancasila by non-Muslim factions, such as PNI, PKI, PSI, Parkindo(Indonesian Protestant Party), the Catholic Party and PartaiIndonesian Raya (Great Indonesian Party), were indeed varied andcontradicted each other. Nonetheless, what was striking for Natsirwas that none of them related the five principles of Pancasila toreligious teachings. The only interpretation that related to the firstprinciple, Belief in the Oneness of God, was that by ArnoldMononutu, a Christian PNI supporter.It is discernible then, that in the Constituent Natsir finallyconcluded that Pancasila, as interpreted by its own supporters,was identical with %u201csecularism%u201d. If this were the case, there wouldbe only two choices for the form of the state: %u201creligious orsecular%u201d. Natsir then theorized on the advantages of takingreligion as the foundation of the state, while describing theweaknesses of secularism.Natsir himself was well aware that, without a compromise,the democratic process in the Constituent Assembly would neverbe able to decide on Islam or Pancasila as the foundation of thestate. According to Natsir, a compromise must be conducted