SEAP Publications
MARHAEN AND PROLETARIAN
SOEKARNO
TRANSLATION SERIES
Modern Indonesia Project
Southeast Asia Program
Department of Far Eastern Studies
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York
1960
Price—$1.00
CM|P>2^
Do not remove from room 213
640 Stewart AvenueMARHAEN AND PROLETARIAN
by
President Soekarno
Speech before the Indonesian Nationalist Party
at the Party’s Thirtieth Anniversary
at Bandung, July 3rd 1957
TRANSLATION SERIES
Modern Indonesia Project
Southeast Asia Program
Department of Far Eastern Studies
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York
1960Ill
PREFACE
Although Indonesia's President and principal
nationalist leader has visited the West—several
Western European and Latin American countries as well
as the United States and Soviet Russia, his ideas are
not widely known in these countries, and indeed, have
often been incorrectly understood. Some of Soekarno's
writings and speeches have been translated and publish-
ed for limited distribution by various departments of
the Indonesian government, but a number of the most
important have appeared so far only in Indonesian.
When in mid-February, 1959, I asked President
Soekarno what he considered to be his most important
address in recent years, he said without a moment's
hesitation:	"My lecture in Bandung in July, 1957
to the Thirtieth Anniversary Meeting of the Indonesian
Nationalist Party." He went on to say that as an ex-
pression of his political philosophy he considered this
to be one of the most important speeches of his entire
career. For those who have followed the development of
President Soekarno's political thinking, it is clear
that this is indeed an address of signal importance—an
exposition of his political ideas at a critical juncture
in Indonesia's post-war history. In addressing what had
then emerged as Indonesia's largest political party,
President Soekarno made one of his fullest criticisms of
parliamentary democracy—as he has come to see it, and
especially as it has operated in Indonesia. This was an
occasion on which he stated with particular forcefulness
his conviction that Indonesia would have to pursue a
different course if she were to realize the economic and
social ideals that were borne by the revolution. He was
speaking at the time when a new organ of government was
about to be set up in accordance with his political phi-
losophy—a National Council, which he saw as substantial
ly supplementing what he regarded as an inadequate par-
liament, and whose establishment would be one of the
first major steps in the direction of what he has termed
"Guided Democracy".
In view of the importance of this address by
Indonesia's President, it is my hope that the Cornell
Modern Indonesia Project can make some contribution toIV
a broader understanding of contemporary Indonesia, and
in particular the views of President Soekarno, by having
it translated and published. I should like to express
to Mrs. Claire Holt our appreciation for the excellent
translation which she has prepared.
George McT. Kahin
Director
Ithaca, New York
May 25, 1960V
TRANSLATOR’S NOTE
Like most of President Soekarno’s speeches, this
address is interspersed with Dutch, English, French and
other foreign words, phrases or whole quotations as
well as with words in some of the regional languages of
Indonesia, in this case Sundanese and Javanese. Usually,
but not always, the foreign language expressions are ex-
plained or paraphrased by the speaker in the next follow-
ing passage(s).
Underscoring of words in the text of the translation
indicates the use of a foreign language, including
English, in the original Indonesian version; points up
the introduction of an expression in one of the regional
languages (e.g. Sundanese or Javanese); or preserves an
idiomatic expression in the Indonesian language (e.g.
gotong rojong).
Items placed between square brackets /	7 are addi-
tions by the translator which might be helpful in clari-
fying the implied meaning. Similarly, a few explanatory
footnotes have been added by the translator.
Round brackets ( ) which do not occur in the origi-
nal text have been used instead of the dashes which set
off asides or lengthy explanatory passages that interrupt
the principal line of discourse.
Acknowledged with thanks are some valuable sugges-
tions made by Daphne Whittam who read the final draft of
the edited translation.
Claire Holt1
Brothers and Sisters* * All:
I should like first to express my thanks for the
gift of this very beautiful painting, given to me by
the Indonesian Nationalist Party as a memento of the
time when, thirty years ago, my friends and I set up
the Indonesian Nationalist Party.
I am very happy this evening to be able to attend
the gathering in this hall commemorating the thirtieth
anniversary of the Indonesian Nationalist Party or the
thirtieth birthday of Marhaenism. I was asked by the
party leadership to speak here; it was asked that this
address be a discourse and even the word "lecture" was
used. God willing, I shall fulfill that request. My
discourse or lecture will deal with the motives, the
reasons, why thirty years ago I and several friends set
up the Indonesian Nationalist Party; and the motives or
reasons why I created that which is now known as
Marhaenism.
You know that I am not now a member of any party:
I am not now a member of the PKI (Indonesian Communist
Party), not_a member of Masjumi, not a member of Nahdla-
tul Ulama /Association of Islamic Scholars/7, not a mem-
ber of the-PNI /Indonesian Nationalist Party/7. I am a
citizen of the Republic of Indonesia named Soekarno who
at this moment happens to hold the position of the first
President of the Republic of Indonesia. So when I lec-
ture to you as I will in a moment about the motives and
reasons why, thirty years ago, I and several friends
established the Indonesian Nationalist Party, providing
a basis for this new movement of Marhaenism, this lecture
will be given in no other spirit but as a remembrance.
PORTRAIT OF 1927
Moreover, I also intend to draw a portrait, a por-
trait of our conditions, of our struggle, of our ideals,
of our desires in 1927. This is your portrait, the year
of 1927, this is your picture. And then, Brothers and
* The Indonesian saudara-saudara, while indicating
brothers and/or sisters, also means near-relatives.
Sisters, when I have painted that portrait of 1927, I
shall invite you to look at yourselves today in this
looking glass, this reflector, this large mirror; compare
what you see with the portrait I give you, of that year
of 1927. And I shall leave it to you, Brothers and
Sisters, to draw your own conclusions. Will the face
that you see in this mirror of 1.957 be the same as the
face of the portrait of 1927? If it is the same—it is
fortunate, praised by the Lord. If it is not the same,
I shall beg you to engage in self-correction.
For, Brothers and Sisters, as I have said over and
over again, not only is our revolution not yet completed,
but our ideals have not yet been attained. What we as-
pired to, what we longed for, what we desired in the year
1927 has not yet been achieved. Do not imagine, Brothers
and Sisters, that ηοψ, that we have the Republic of Indo-
nesia, whose territorial jurisdiction extends over almost
the whole Indonesian archipelago from Sabang to Merauke,
we can now say that all of our ideals have been achieved.
No! For if all of our ideals had been achieved, I would
not be saying that our revolution is not yet completed.
Permit me, Brothers and Sisters, to depict for you
the motives and reasons why I and several friends set up
the Indonesian Nationalist Party on 4 July 1927.
Earlier, my beloved friend Soewirjo has described
so clearly how the Indonesian Nationalist Party came to
life, under the saddest of conditions, in an atmosphere
where the whole of the Indonesian community and the
People of Indonesia lived in mental confusion, lived with
a sense of loss of leadership and of leaders. Those
words of Mr. Soewirjo are true, Brothers and Sisters.
Mr. Soewirjo told you that in 1927 we had repeatedly
stressed Indonesia merdeka sekarang: Indonesia indepen-
dent now! Yes, Mr. Soewirjo further said that in that
year we also stated that independence was only a golden
bridge.
Indeed, Brothers and Sisters, if you ask me what
were the bases for the formation of the Indonesian Natio-
nalist Party thirty years ago, then I should speak of
three matters:
First, the aim. An aim which may not be changed—
which may not be changed today, which may not be changed
in the days ahead. And what is that aim, Brothers and3
Sisters? It is nothing else but a society which in
today’s terminology is called a just and prosperous
society, and which, in the terminology of 1927, was call-
ed a society of sama rasa sama rata* *. This aim must
remain fixed, Brothers and Sisters, and it may not be
altered.
Second, the Indonesian Nationalist Party from 1927
onwards insisted that an absolute condition (said to be
the most important condition in 1927, but in fact being
an absolute condition) for achieving this objective,
was national independence. Indonesia Merdeka, Indepen-
dent Indonesia, was even called for by the Indonesian
Nationalist Party in the words "Independent Indonesia
Now, Now, Now". Three times now.’
Third, it is already clear, the aim is a just and
prosperous society, or an egalitarian society, or, in
words better known by the whole world, a socialist
society, in. the pure sense.
REVOLUTIONARY MASS ACTION
To attain a socialist society, or an egalitarian
society, or a just and prosperous society, we had to
cross a golden bridge, named Indonesia Merdeka, Indepen-
dent Indonesia. There arose the question, how to attain
an Independent Indonesia. And it was the Indonesian
Nationalist Party that gave to this a firm answer:
through revolutionary mass action.
Because, Brothers and Sisters, there were those,
especially at that time, who said we could attain natio-
nal independence without revolutionary mass action, but
that it could be won through education, through negotia-
tions with the Dutch, through playing parliament in the
Volksraad, and, moreover, as you know, Brothers and Sis-
ters, the Dutch as a result of pressure from the Volks-
raad in the month of November 1918, had even given their
well-known November Promises: "De November-beloften van
1918". There were people who supposed that independence
or, at the very least, extension of political rights,
could be attained merely by requests, by petitions.
* Sama Rasa Sama Rata: Literally: "same feelings, same
level", i.e. equality in rights, obligations, and
status, etc. In other words, an egalitarian society.4
In newspapers, in meetings, in the Volksraad or in
other councils, it was later stated that independence or
extension of political rights might be given as a gesture,
out of goodness of heart.
I remember, Brothers and Sisters, when I was only
17 years old I heard of the existence of the "November-
beloften" /the promises of November, 1918/, in which the
Dutch promised the People of Indonesia an expansion of
political rigths; I still remember how many leaders re-
joiced thinking: Ah, now certainly it will come about
that we will get an extension of rights which will ulti-
mately bring us to an Independent Indonesia. At that
time I, as a you|h'^of 17 years, had already begun to
shake my head. No! Independence would not be attained
this way. And I said outright at that time to the late
Hadji Umar Said Tjokroaminoto that I did not believe that
the November promises would be fulfilled.
And in fact, Brothers and Sisters, those November
promises were not fulfilled. What was the reason? The
reason was that the November 1918 promises were given by
the Dutch at a time when the Netherlands was in great
danger. The first world war was then raging at its
worst. Communications between the Netherlands and Indo-
nesia may be said to have been entirely cut and, added
to this, there was in the Netherlands a strong movement
amongst the workers—a movement intent even on overthrow-
ing the Netherlands royal dynasty. It was under these
conditions, Brothers and Sisters, that the November pro-
mises were made. On the one hand, requests from the Peo-
ple of Indonesia for extension of rights; on the other
hand, pressure from the workers in Holland itself, pres-
sure to overthrow the dynasty; and the disruption of
communications between the Netherlands and Indonesia
caused by the first world war.
It was under those circumstances, then, that the
November promises were made. But when the war was over,
when the relations between the Netherlands and her colo-
ny could be restored, when conditions considered normal
at that time became normal again, when the workers’ move-
ment in Holland had subsided, the promises of November
1918 were completely forgotten. It was exactly as
Mr. Pieter Jelles Troelstra, a leader of the workers in
Holland said: The November promises were promises forced
by conditions. Troelstra, in a vigorous speech in the
Second Chamber of the Dutch Parliament said:5
"Het was het hoogte punt van't Internationale gebeuren,
toen de splinters van stukgeslagen tronen het volk van
Nederland om de ooren vlogen en de donder van buiten-
landsche revoluties over zijn velden rolde."*
At that time Troelstra said: The §plinters of
thrones, friends, to the right and left of the Nether-
lands fly around the people of Holland. And the people
of Holland hear the rolling, the detonations, the explo-
sions of revolutions abroad. The existence of these
conditions, friends, the revolution in Germany, the re-
volution in Russia which gave birth to the Soviet Union,
moreover, pressure from the workers (in the Netherlands)
who sought to overthrow the royal house, demands of the
People of Indonesia through parliamentary means, the
rupture of communications between Indonesia and the Ne-
therlands, caused the Dutch to make the November pro-
mises. What Troelstra said was exactly right.
That happened in 1918, Brothers and Sisters. But,
in spite of these experiences of 1918, there were still
many among the leaders of Indonesia who thought that
National Independence could be attained by asking, by
petitioning, even by begging. But the Indonesian Natio-
nalist Party in 1927 asserted that National Independence
could not be attained by such methods, but must be won
by means of revolutionary mass action.
These are the three /principles7, Brothers and
Sisters:	the aim, a just and prosperous society; the
conditions to attain it—via the golden bridge; and the
only means by which the golden bridge could be won—
revolutionary mass action. These were the three funda-
mentals of the Indonesian Nationalist Party, Brothers
and Sisters.
MARHAEN AND PROLETARIAN
And now it may be asked, what is it that is called
"mass"? What is mass action which is revolutionary—
revolutionary mass action? What is said to be the mass,
what is called "the masses"? It is here, Brothers and
Sisters, that there arises the idea of Marhaen, the
concept of Marhaen.
* Literally: "It was theclimax of international
events when the splinters of demolished thrones flew
around the ears of Netherlands’ people and the thun-
der of foreign revolutions rolled over its fields."6
When Mr. Soewirjo said a while ago: the people of
Indonesia, the Indonesian masses are primarily Workers
and Peasants, that is true. I ask that stress be put
upon the word "primarily", because what I meant by the
term "masses" in 1927 was not solely workers and peasants
(even though primarily they are workers and peasants),
for, apart from the workers’ and peasants’ groups there
are yet many other groups who are neither workers nor
peasants.
For example, Brothers and Sisters, the "tukang roda"
(a Bandung term*) are not workers, are not peasants; to
what group do they belong? The street vendors who put
up the wayside stalls, they are not workers nor peasants;
what group includes them? Formerly, in 1926, there was
a term well-known in Indonesian circles, that is the
term "Proletariat"; the meaning of this term was often
not understood. The term proletariat was used in 1926
to describe the whole of the poor, the common people;
but they are by far not all proletarians.
Heh, abdi mah proletar /"I am a proletarian"7 but
the man who says that may not be a proletarian aT all.
For instance, Brothers and Sisters, once a farmer from
Tjidjerokaso said "I am a proletarian", but he was not
a proletarian; or a small vendor with a food-stall at
the Idjan crossroads said:"I am a proletarian"—but he
was not at all a proletarian. To whom then does that
term proletariat apply? In 1927 in my lecture courses,
especially in those for the cadres, I stated that a mem-
ber of the proletariat is a person who sells his labor-
power to another, without himself owning the means of
production. The proletariat are the workers who do not
participate in ownership of the means of production. But
our nation, Brothers and Sisters, is composed of tens
of millions of people not all of whom are covered by the
term proletariat. There are great numbers indeed who are
not laborers, very many who do not sell their labor-power
to others.
Formerly I explained to my comrades, my old friends,
why I used the term "Marhaen". It was for no other rea-
son but that on a certain day I was walking in the rice
* '"Tukang roda" or "tqkang betjak", tricycle-carriage
drivers.7
fields to the south of Tjigereleng, and I came across
a man hoeing the field, and I asked him: "Brother, who
owns this field?" "Gaduh abdi" /T own itZ Kfe said. And
so he participated in ownership of the means of produc-
tion, owning that rice field. "And the hoe, who owns
that?" "Gaduh abdi". "These tools, who owns these?"
"Gaduh abdi1*. "But, Brother, you live in poverty?"
"That’s right, I live poorly." And I thought to myself
then, this man clearly and certainly is not a member
of the proletariat, he is a pauper, he is poor, he suf-
fers much, he has not enough to live on, but he is not
a member of the proletariat, for he does not sell his
labor-power to another without participating in owner-
ship of the means of production. His rice field is his
own property, his hoe is his own, his sickle is his own,
his rake is his own. Everything is his own property;
the crop of his rice field is for his own use. But
still he is a pauper, he is poor. Nevertheless he is
not one of the proletariat, he is a small farmer, a very
poor farmer, barely making a living. "Tani sieur’\ I
said at that time "Tani gurem".* He is not one of the
proletariat. Then, Brothers and Sisters, I asked him
"What is your name?" "I am Marhaen**," he said. He
said that his name was Marhaen. I had an inspiration:
Now, this name I will hold to; I will use this name to
describe the destitute People of Indonesia.
And of poor Indonesians there are not one million,
not two million or three, but almost the whole of the
Indonesian People are paupers. Almost the whole of the
People of Indonesia are Marhaen.’ They are the poor
common people, yes, the poor worker, yes, the poor pea-
sant, yes, the poor fisherman, yes,the poor clerk, yes,
the poor stall vendor, yes, the poor cart driver, yes,
the poor chauffeur—all of these are embraced by the one
term, Marhaen.
TRADE IMPERIALISM AND INVESTMENT CAPITAL
Why are almost all of the people of Indonesia poor?
That is something I explained in my lectures at that
time. I explained that Dutch imperialism, which had
* Tani sieur (Sundanese); Tani gurem (Javanese:
Literally, a chicken-flea peasant, i.e. a peasant
with a plot of land no larger than a flea.
** Marhaen, pronounced Mahr-hah-en.8
been operating in Indonesia for decades, even for hun-
dreds of years, had a different character, a different
nature than, for instance, British imperialism. At that
time I told members of the Indonesian Nationalist Party:
British imperialism, for example, which operated in
India, had the character of a mercantile imperialism—a
trade imperialism, in order to sell British-made goods
in India. And in order that the People of India should
be able to buy those British-made goods, British impe-
rialism in India at that time did not impoverish the
People of India too much. It still took care that some
purchasing power did exist amongst the Indian people;
for, a population which is completely pauperized is not
able to buy goods. It was because of this, Brothers and
Sisters, that in 1927, 1928 and 1929 I said: ’’British
imperialism provided education for the People of India
quite early.” Schools were established in India, even
colleges and universities were set up in India just in
order to maintain some purchasing power among the Indian
people. And, therefore, the Indian people were not made
too poor.
As a reaction to British imperialism in India (and
of course there was a reaction, for all people eventual-
ly desire independence... as I said in 1927: even the
worm will turn, let alone man, when trodden upon over
and over again, he will certainly revolt at last), as a
reaction to this imperialism, the People of India began
a movement known as the Swadeshi movement. In order to
counteract the imports from Britain, the Indian people
declared that they would not buy British goods: The
People of India started the Swadeshi movement, made
their own goods, wove their own cloth, spun their own
thread, even set up their own factories. This Swadeshi
movement was a logical consequence of the nature of Bri-
tish imperialism which was ’’trade-capitalistic".
But what was the nature of Dutch imperialism in
Indonesia, Brothers and Sisters? Dutch imperialism in
Indonesia was not, I said, first and foremost a merchant
imperialism, (though it had some aspects of trade, Bro-
thers and Sisters, and of no mean dimensions—but it was
still not primarily mercantile imperialism). The Dutch
imperialism which operated in Indonesia was primarily of
the kind that Hilverdink called "finance capital". The
Dutch brought money to Indonesia, not to give to the
Indonesian people—"Here’s some money for you...." Oh,
no! But money to invest in Indonesia, in the form of9
factories, in the form of estates, in order to squeeze
out, to dig up, to scratch up all the kinds of riches
there are in Indonesia. Capital, investment-capital,
was introduced into Indonesia, was made to work in In-
donesia like an all-powerful giant, I used to say.
This money worked in Indonesia, scraping up Indonesia’s
wealth to be taken to Holland and to be sold in Europe,
to gain profits in Europe which were brought again to
Indonesia to be planted in Indonesia, in order to dig
up Indonesia’s wealth once more. And that wealth was
taken again to Europe, sold in Europe, and bore profit
in Europe. And that money became finance capital again,
was once more brought to Indonesia, planted in Indone-
sia, used in business in Indonesia. Round and round in
this fashion for decades, even for centuries, Brothers
and Sisters.
Now the consequences of investment capital are
different from those of trade imperialism. What does
investment capital seek? You wish to set up a sugar
refinery, for example, so you need land on which to
plant sugar-cane; and it is desirable that the rent for
the land should not be too high. People who are clever,
people who are intelligent, people who understand their
own interests, ask high rents for land. And, therefore,
the People of Indonesia were not taught; a knowledge of
their own interests, and their possible advancement was
withheld from them, in order that land rents might re-
main low. What does a sugar refinery need? A sugar
refinery needs workers, workers to work in the refinery,
workers to work in the cane fields. In order that they
might not demand higher wages, these workers were not
provided with skills. Always their wants and necessi-
ties were suppressed. Thus the tendency was different,
Brothers and Sisters.
Whereas trade imperialism still gave some small
heed to the purchasing power of a people (I don’t say
that trade capitalism makes a people free and indepen-
dent, not at all, but merely that it somewhat main-
tains .the purchasing power of a people)—whereas trade
imperialism acted thus, the imperialism of investment
capital suppressed the needs and the skills of the peo-
ple. It needed cheap rents, it needed cheap labor.
Therefore, a process took place in Indonesia called the
"pauperiserings-proces"—the pauperization of the Indo-
nesian people. So that—as I explained in my defense
speech in the Landraad court in Bandung, later printed,
as a book, "Indonesia Menggugat" /"^Indonesia Accuses^/—
Indonesia came to be "small’* in style—everything became10
small-styled. For example, no assistance was given to
increasing needs. Everything was constantly pauperized.
Everything came to have the stamp of smallness: the
small worker—a pauper; the small farmer—a pauper; the
small fisherman—a pauper; the small cart-and-horse own-
er—a pauper; the small employee—a pauper. Everything
was small. And this applied not only to the proletariat
alone (that is, the workers who sold their labor-power
without participating in ownership of the means of pro-
duction) , it applied to the whole of society.
It was in this connection, Brothers and Sisters,
that I said that the whole of society suffered pauper-
ization, and I needed a name for all those who were
pauperized. A name for the worker and the peasant, for
the fisherman and the carter, for the low-ranking police-
man and the children of the troops of the former Indies
army, as well as the reporters, and the stall-keeper,
yes, for every kind of all these small people.
It was lucky, praised be the Lord, that one day I
had an inspiration when I was talking to Marhaen south
of Tjigareleng. He seemed to become a symbol of the
small man of Indonesia. A symbol of the power of the
Indonesian people. A symbol of the explosive force, the
explosive material for achieving Indonesia Merdeha
Brothers and Sisters.
I said a while ago that British imperialism, the
trade imperialism in India, could eventually be beaten
by the movement led by Mahatma Gandhi, characterized by
swadeshi and satyagraha (that is, civil disobedience),
as the people of Central Java say: hambalela—swadeshi,
satyagraha; it was especially this swadeshi which cons-
tituted strong competition by the Indian people them-
selves capable of counteracting the imports from Britain.
It was by such means that the people of India eventually
won Indian independence.
But we, the Indonesian People, Brothers and Sisters,
we could not achieve Indonesia's independence by means
of swadeshi. No—because we did not have the material
with which to build a great movement capable of beating
imperialism here. We could not overcome a strong invest-
ment-capital system merely by a swadeshi movement—no!
And for that reason, Brothers and Sisters, the Indonesian
Nationalist Party emphatically stated in 1927: The only
power which can throw off Dutch imperialism in Indonesia11
is revolutionary action by the masses. A mass action
by all of Indonesia’s Marhaens, who are tens of millions
strong. And this, Brothers and Sisters, happened after
17th August 1945, when all of Indonesia’s Marhaens, yes,
those who were young men and women, who were workers,
who were peasants, rose and acted.
I remember the year 1928, Brothers and Sisters,—
at that time there was a certain Dutch Resident in Ban-
dung who, on one of the Dutch holidays, with the Dutch
Indies employees before him, with the gentlemen of the
estates before him, with a picked group of subservient
people before him, Brothers and Sisters, made a speech
in the building which is now the Governor’s Residence
and where I am to spend this night. He spoke there,
pointing to the tri-colour, the red, white and blue of
the Netherlands; he said to the assembled ladies &nd
gentlemen:	''Zie, daar wappert onze drie-kleur. Daar
wappert onze vlag. En zij zullen op ijzer bijten, die
die vlag trachten neer te halen." Meaning: ’’Look,
there flies our tri-colour. There flies our flag. And
whoever may seek to lower it shall bitfe upon iron."
"Zij zullen op ijzer bijten, die onze vlag trachten neer
to halen." Oh yes, Brothers and Sisters, we the People
of Indonesia did indeed bite upon iron, but it was not
our teeth that were.smashed, Brothers and Sisters, not
our teeth, but the iron itself was crushed to bits! And
why was the iron crushed, Brothers and Sisters? Because
we took revolutionary mass action.
Thus, I have elucidated three principles—the aim
of a just and prosperous society, and egalitarian socie-
ty, a socialist society. This remains fixed! But the
bridge to it, the golden bridge, Indonesia’s Independence,
its construction is not yet completed today, Brothers
and Sisters. And even the incomplete structure is be-
coming chipped, and some of its pillars are beginning to
crumble away. Not only is it being damaged by the ac-
tions of those others, the subversive foreigners, but
also amongst our own people, too, there are fools who
would damage the pillars of that bridge; and so our gold-
en bridge is not yet perfected.
Revolutionary mass action, Brothers and Sisters,
is the way, the one and only way, to attain, to erect,
to create, to build this golden bridge.12
So much, Brothers and Sisters, for the past. The
aim is clear, similarly the absolute precondition for
Indonesia Merdeka, that is the golden bridge, is clear
too. We have already undertaken the mass action.
BUILDING, ORGANIZING AND DESTROYING
And now, having attained Indonesia Merdeka since
17th August 1945,—as Pak ’Wirjo said a while ago—now
that we are independent, we enter a new phase. Pak
’Wirjo said that earlier there was phase of demolition,
of destroying, but that the present phase is one of
organization and construction.
Perhaps a slight correction is :in order. Our duty
today, Brothers and Sisters, is not only to build and to
construct. Our duty is still to destroy, we still have
a duty to tear down. Because, as I said this_morning to
the students who came to the Istana Merdeka /’’Freedom
Palace^/ in Djakarta: ’’Do not imagine that colonialism
no longer exists in Indonesia. Is there no longer any
imperialism in Indonesia? Now that we have the State of
the Republic of Indonesia, may we say that colonialism
is dead?" "No," I said, "Colonialism is not yet dead,
imperialism is not yet dead.”'
We must continue the struggle to destroy imperial-
ism and colonialism. It is clear, Brothers and Sisters,
that we live today in a world different from the one
before we had the Republic. But, we still need to ponder
several matters. Just as an example, Brothers and Sis-
ters, in ’27,	’28,	’29 I asserted that what we call a
sama rasa sama rata society, a just and prosperous so-
ciety—socialism, cannot be attained by a policy of li-
beralism, cannot be achieved by a liberal economy which
was earlier criticized also by Pak ’Wirjo. This is true,
certainly it is so. Let us not imagine that we can
establish a just and prosperous society—equality—
socialism, by pursuing a policy of liberalism in the
form of parliamentary democracy.
I asserted this in 1927, 1928, 1929, 1932 and 1933,
Brothers and Sisters. We cannot attain our ideals of
a socialist society, of equality, of a just and prospe-
rous society by parliaments. Cannot, because what is
called parliamentary democracy, I said, is the result of
the growth in Europe of a bourgeoisie over several13
decades. Political liberalism, economic liberalism, are
the political and economic philosophy of an opkomende
bourgeoisie, of a rising bourgeoisie.
And later, when the bourgeoisie is on the brink of
perishing, Brothers and Sisters, this bourgeoisie tries
to save itself by another method, no longer by means of
parliamentary democracy, but by means of fascism.
The political philosophy of a bourgeoisie, while
it is growing, while it is strong, is liberalism. Its
political philosophy is parliamentary democracy. A
bourgeoisie which is on the decline, which is almost
dead, which needs to save itself, a moribund bourgeoisie,
tries to save its life by fascist means. In 1928, I
clearly wrote in the magazine "Suluh Indonesia Muda"
/"Torch of Young Indonesia"/ that fascism was "een laaste
reddingspoging van het kapitalisme," that fascism was a
last attempt of capitalism to save itself.
But I repeat: parliamentary democracy is the phi-
losophy of a rising bourgeoisie and of a bourgeoisie
which is strong, Brothers and Sisters. How could we hope
to set up and run a socialist society with parliamen-
tary democracy and a liberal policy? No, Brothers and
Sisters !
I explained it in my lectures at that time, telling
for instance, the story of the French Revolution. The
slogan of the French Revolution was "Liberte, Egalite,
Fraternite". Egalite and Fraternity are slogans for
equal rights and brotherhood; Liberty is for independence,
freedom. Those were the slogans of the rising bourgeoi-
sie. I explained that prior to the ascendency of that
bourgeoisie, power in France was held by the feudal group
and the church group. They were called the first power
and the second power; the first power was the feudal
lords and the second was the church. At the time when
the bourgeoisie was about to rise, it could not rise
freely because of the laws of the state, the laws and
regulations in force in the country. These did not be-
nefit that bourgeoisie, they did not give opportunities
to that bourgeoisie. Every law was made in order to
protect the first class and the second class.
I even remember, Brothers and Sisters, that in one
of my lectures I repeated the words of a French king who
said: "Le loi c'est moi\." I am the law of the state!14
Le lot c'est moi, in order to safeguard feudalism. Le
loi c’est moi in order to safeguard the tweede stand
/lit:	second class or estat^/7, the church. The bour-
geoisie which sought to rise could not do so, Brothers
and Sisters, it had no space in which to grow. There-
fore, there came the French Revolution, I said. The
French Revolution with its awful sacrifices. The French
Revolution under the leadership of Danton, Robespierre,
of Marat, of Mirabeau, of Theroigne de Mericourt, of
Babeuf and of others. The French Revolution was in es-
sence nothing else but a revolution of the bourgeoisie
trying to rise and using slogans which could attract
the people.
The French Revolution eventually achieved a system
called the system of parliamentary democracy, after it
had gone on for decades. Indeed, I have said a number
of times that no revolution can be finished in a year.
Each great revolution takes many decades. To return to
the French Revolution, when did that revolution begin?
If we reckon from "de eed in de kaatsbaan" /"the tennis-
court oath"/, then it began in 1789. But if” we reckon
from the pEilosophies which preceded the French Revolu-
tion, the philosophies of Rousseau, Montesquieu or of
Voltaire, it began before 1789. But, taking "de eed
in de kaatsbaan" of 1789 as the beginning, when did it
end, Brothers and Sisters? It ended by the middle of
the 19th century. For more than seventy years the
French Revolution continued, to win parliamentary demo-
cracy. Parliamentary democracy to assist the growth of
a national bourgeoisie, to help the national bourgeoisie
to achieve a position in the field of production.
And now we would use this parliamentary democracy
to win socialism, Brothers and Sisters? We cannot.*
I repeat with deepest conviction, Brothers and Sisters:
—impossible.’ Because parliamentary democracy grew out
of the philosophy of political liberalism, and liberal-
ism is the enemy of socialism. It is impossible, Bro-
thers and Sisters.
PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY AND SOCIO-DEMOCRACY
In 1927, the Indonesian Nationalist Party for the
first time heard from me the term socio-democracy. What
is the meaning of socio-democracy, Brothers and Sisters?
Nowadays one often hears socio-democracy, socio-national
ism. What is the meaning of socio-democracy?15
Socio-democracy is in: ijfact the challenge to parlia-
mentary democracy. Precisely because we know that par-
liamentary democracy is unable to establish, to create,
to build socialism. Therefore, and just for that reason
we are instituting a democracy that differs from that
parliamentary democracy, namely a socio-democracy.
Remember my lectures.’ I once said: don’t imagine
that we can set up a just and prosperous society solely
with political equality. Oh yes, a policy of liberal-
ism does give equality in the political field. Every
person has the right to exercise his vote, his politi-
cal vote; every person has the right to become a member
of parliament, to be elected a member of parliament and
to elect members of parliament. Every person, your-
selves, the General, the Soldier, the Clerk, the Fisher-
man, the Worker, the Farmer, the man, the woman, the
rich, the poor, all of them have the right to vote and
to be elected to the House of Representatives. They
are equal in the political field. That political equal-
ity is even inscribed in golden letters in their Cons-
titution, written down in the constitution of their
state:	every citizen who reaches such and such an age
may enter the political field. However, Brothers and
Sisters, while the poor worker has the same right as his
employer, while the soldier from the ranks has the same
right as his general, while the fisherman who eats only
once a day has the same right as the capitalist who
lives in a fourteen story building, poverty, friends,
still reigns. In the hovels the women still lament, in
the shacks mothers still weep because, lacking food,
their breasts give forth milk no longer. But in their
constitution, Brothers and Sisters, the letters are
inscribed in gold—there is no discrimination between
citizens so long as they are of such and such or such
and such an age,—all are equal, they may vote for and
be elected as members of parliament.
Very much to the point are the words of Charles
Fourier, one of the leading socialists of the mid-nine-
teenth century: ’’Men kan de honger van een bedelaar
niet stillen door hem een grondwet in de hand te stoppen.
’’One cannot fill the stomachs of hungry beggars by stuff-
ing a constitution into their hands."—"Men kan de hon-
ger van een bedelaar niet stillen door hem een grondwet
in de hand te stoppen." Well, this has been my convic-
tion since 1927, Brothers and Sisters. We cannot create
a just and prosperous society by parliamentary democracy
alone. This is why I said in my lectures: let us aim16
not only at political democracy; we must also create eco-
nomic democracy; not only equality in the political field
but also equality in the economic field. Political-eco-
nomic democracy, political democracy and economic democra
cy side by side. This is what the Indonesian Nationalist
Party calls socio-democracy. And only if we continue to
remember this, continue to hold fast to faith in socio-
democracy will you be able to save this people. Why then
is it that amongst us at this present time, Brothers and
Sisters, there are those who still cling to parliamentary
democracy?
I use the term ’’socio-democracy" deliberately.
Alternatively, the term of a socialist, a man from Vien-
na, whose name was Adler dpuld be used. He was not a
communist, nor was he a "soft" socialist; he was neither
a member of the Third International nor yet of the Se-
cond. At times it was teasingly alleged that he was a
member of the Second-and-a-half International—an inter-
mediate International, between the Second and Third.
Adlei· used a new term, Brothers and Sisters—he said:
We should aim not solely at political democracy, but we
should aim at, what he called, "sociale democratie", i.e.
social democracy.*
Now whoever hears me say social democracy should
remember what I said when as President, not as Bung
Karno, I installed the Minister for Social Affairs,
Mr. Moeljadi Djojomartono. At that time I reminded peo-
ple that the word social has a very extensive meaning
and concerns the whole of society. Social democracy or
sociale democratie is our objective, Brothers and Sis-
ters. This is not "Social-Democracy", as I said at
Madiun several weeks ago. "Social-Democracy" is one of
the currents of socialism. There are many currents in
socialism. There is religious socialism, there is the
socialism called utopian, there is nihilist socialism,
there is communist socialism, and there is a socialism
* The speaker here and below differentiates between
social democracy (social as an adjective, cf. Adler)
and Social-Democracy as a compound term for one of
the socialist trends. In Dutch and Indonesian which
he uses the terms are: sociale democratie and
demokrasi sosial respectively for the former, and
Social-Democr.Atie and Sosial demokrasi for the latter.17
which calls itself "Social-Democracy'’. Thus Social-
Democracy is one of the currents of socialism. But
what I mean is not that: what I mean is "soclale
democratic", which we call socio-democracy.
THE REVOLUTION DEMANDS "THINKING AND RETHINKING",
"SHAPING AND RESHAPING"
If we are now convinced, Brothers and Sisters, that
we cannot attain the ideals of socialism merely through
parliamentary democracy, let us how review the present
conditions, Brothers and Sisters.
At present we already have the state of the Republic
of Indonesia, we have been independent now for as long
as almost twelve years—how do we stand? It is evident
now that within the eleven years of our independence, we
have not yet been able to provide prosperity and justice
for the People. Our ideals to create a just and prospe-
rous society have not been achieved at all. For this
reason, Brothers and Sisters, it would be well for us to
reconsider our life within the present structure and me-
thods of government. And, truly, revolution requires us
at all times to reflect upon everything. In a revolution,
as I said at Madiun, we must think and re-think, we must
traverse the road of thinking and re-thinking. Think
again and think again, and not only think but form-
shape is the English word—and if necessary re-shape.
Shaping and re-shaping and again re-shaping. Shape some-
thing, and if it is evident that the form is wrong, dis-
card it, get rid of it, replace it with a new form, re-
shape it. If this be wrong, discard it, replace it with
a new form. If that be wrong, replace it with a new
form again.
Truly, Brothers and Sisters, revolution is a tremen-
dous process which takes decades, as I said before.
Shaping, renshaping, thinking, re-thinking. Revolution
is not a graven idol, once made, semuhun dawuh*, there
it sits unchanging. Oh no! A revolution is something
alive, something dynamic.
* A Javanese expression ofsubmission or blind obedience
as "yes, my lord" or "as you please (command), my lord"
etc.18
A revolution, I say, is a great symphony, a great
symphony of destructive and constructive forces. Destruc-
tive and constructive forces.’ A great symphony between
the forces which destroy, crush and turn things to dust,
and creative, constructive forces; a simultaneous action
of two mighty processes. Therefore, in a revolution let
us not hesitate to think and re-think, to shape and re-
shape .
Let us, Brothers and Sisters, review our life within
the structure of the state, our parliamentary democracy.
Is this enough, Brothers and Sisters? Have we been able
to establish a just and prosperous society with this,
our system of parliamentary democracy, which we have used
during these last eleven years? Have we? Brothers and
Sisters, I say: No we could not. Because parliamentary
democracy is an outgrowth of liberalism, and a policy of
liberalism cannot possibly bring socialism, or a society
of sama rasa sama rata /equality/7. And therefore we must
re-shape, re-shape and re-shapeT We must look for some-
thing elseT Don’t be afraid to search for something else
if you are truly a revolutionary. Those who are afraid
to seek something new, something different, they are
inert wooden figures, Brothers and Sisters, people with-
out a dynamic spirit. Shape and re-shape. Think and
re-think.
THE FOUR FREEDOMS
Brothers and Sisters, in Serang and in Madiun a while
ago I expounded the differences between the ideals known
in the western world and the ideals of the nations of the
eastern world which are now independent. At that time,
I took as an example the so-called Roosevelt doctrine.
A former president of the United States of America named
Roosevelt propounded his famous doctrine, namely the
Four Freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of worship,
freedom from want, freedom from fear. Of these four,
"freedom of speech” is freedom to state opinions; "free-
dom of worship" is freedom to follow any religion a per-
son chooses; ^freedom from want" is freedom from poverty,
freedom from destitution; "freedom from fear" is freedom
from the feeling of fear. For, in the fascist world men
are overcome by fear—fear of their own neighbors lest
they be denouncers, fear of the concentration camp, fear
of the lash of the reactionaries, fear of punishments,
fear of everything—even fear of their superiors, of their
own "in laws", mothers, fathers, and children, lest they19
be spies. Well, it is freedom from this feeling of
being afraid, Brothers and Sisters, which Roosevelt
called "freedom from fear". Four freedoms, Consider
especially the first and the third, freedom of speech
and freedom from want. Examine them carefully,
Brothers and Sisters.’ In the world of parliamentary
democracy it is the first of these which is implemented,
freedom of speech. It is this which gives equal poli-
tical rights to all men. Freedom of speech, the fact
that people may express their opinions, express their
criticisms, may become members of parliament, may
choose members of parliament—freedom of speech. How
about freedom from want? No.’ Freedom from want is
not too effectively implemented. However, there are
countries where this freedom from want is in fact given
priority. Freedom from want is given priority, although
freedom of speech has not been implemented at all times.
Just for example, Brothers and Sisters, we can
see plainly that in the United States of America priori-
ty is given to freedom of speech, and freedom from want
comes later; whilst in the Soviet Union and in the
Peoples Republic of China what is given priority, what
is sought first is freedom from want; freedom of speech,
desnoods /if need be/ comes later. I have discussed
this with Madame Soong Ching Ling, the widow of the late
Dr. Sun Yat Sen, about whom I used to tell in th£
courses concerned with the movement in Tiongkok/China/.
(Mr. Tjidjerokaso calls it not Tiongkok,but Ongkiok.T
I used to give lectures about China, about Dr. Sun Yat
Sen, and here was his widow—Madame Sun Yat Sen, or
Madame Soong Ching Ling. When I was in the Peoples Re-
public of China several months ago, I asked Madame Soong
Ching Ling: "Madame, are you a member of the Communist
Party?" No.' "No, Brother, I am not a member of the
Communist Party." She was not a member of the Communist
Party. "Why sister,"—indeed, I addressed Madame*Soong
Ching Ling as Sister—"Why, Sister, but you help the
present government, the government of the Peoples Repu-
blic of China today?" "Yes, I help the present govern-
ment of China 'full-hearted'," she said, i.e. with full
conviction. "Is it true that the present Chinese govern-
ment is concerned first with freedom from want?" "Yes,
of course that is true. It is this which should be
given priority, freedom from want; to try as hard as
possible, to plan, to make every possible effort, to
spend all available energy so that the people can be
freed from poverty." "Oh, and how about freedom of20
speech?” "Yes, we will arrange that and give freedom of
speech—but the other comes first." It is the same as
In the Soviet Union, Brothers and Sisters, which gives
priority to freedom from want, which gives priority to
efforts tosecure freedom from want; freedom of speech,
desnoods /if need be/, comes later?
I asked Madame Soong Ching Ling: "Why do you give
priority to freedom from want?" Her reply was most
striking. She replied in English: "Yes, my brother,
because the stomach does not wait." Yes, my younger bro-
ther , the reason is that an empty stomach cannot be or-
dered to wait. One can say to others: next year is
time enough for you to express your opinions, you will
get your freedom of speech next yea?, or five years later,
or ten years later, only then may you express your opi-
nions, at present you just have to obey, just to follow,
just to keep quiet. One can say Such a thing. But one
cannot say to a poor man: Wait, wait, wait—don’t ask
for food now—next year will do, I’ll give you food then.
Let alone for one year, just order people to wait for one
month, and they cannot, Brothers and Sisters. They can-
not wait for a single day. The stomach does not wait.
Therefore, what is given precedence in their efforts is
freedom from waIt. Later on—desnoods /if need be/, —
freedom of speech.	~
I spoke about this in my lectures in Serang, in Ma-
diun and in other places a while ago—that in the Soviet
Union, for example, quite intentionally in the beginning,
freedom of speech was completely neglected. It can be
said that there is no freedom of speech, even that there
is open dictatorship-dictatorship of the proletariat.
A dictatorship which can force, compel, make it obligato-
ry for the whole of society to accept decisions.
What about us, Brothers and Sisters? To what should
we give priority? We have this party--this PNI, this
Indonesian Nationalist Party—socio-nationalism, socio-
democracy. In the principles of our present administra-
tion we have the Pantja Sila /Five Principles/7. Nothing
is given priority, and nothing is postponed until later:
this comes first and this comes later. No.' But, con-
currently, freedom of speech and freedom from want,
together:	politico-economic democracy. This is our
endeavor, Brothers and Sisters. This is the core of the
political sphere which seeks democracy in the economic
sphere also. This politico-economic democracy is called,
if we use the term of Adler, sociale democratie.21
THE NATIONAL COUNCIL
Well, how can we achieve such a state of affairs?
Can it be through parliamentary democracy alone? No,
I say, that is impossible! Through parliamentary demo-
cracy alone we cannot achieve politico-economic democra-
cy. This is the reason, Brothers and Sisters, why after
thinking and re-thinking, I have arrived at the point
at whicji we must re-shape. Shape and re-shape. This,
Brothers and Sisters, is at the core of my intention in
setting up the National Council, which, God willing, I
shall install on the twelfth of this month. For, the
National Council is an endeavor to Implement, to put
into practice, to realize this idea. The idea that
within the present world—in the present world of this
Republic—we should attempt to achieve a just and pros-
perous society.
A while ago I spoke about the Soviet Union, Bro-
thers and Sisters. In the Soviet Union or in other
states which have only one political party conditions
are very easy. In the Soviet Union there is only one
party, the Communist Party. One may say that in India
there is only one party, the Congress Party; in Burma
it may be said that there is only one party, the A.F.L.,
the Anti-Fascist League. In countries with only one
party, shaping and re-shaping, thinking and re-thinking,
can proceed easily. For instance, in the Soviet Union,
Brothers and Sisters, if it be necessary to i^e-shape it
is very easy; once that single party managed to change
its opinion, off starts the re-shaping. Look also at
India, Brothers and Sisters; it may be said there is
only one party, the Congress Party. If it appears that
something is wrong, is not good, something which should
be changed, re-shaped—in what way is it done? On a
certain day, Nehru says: "I want to give all of my
energy, 100 per cent to this party, the Congress Party;
I want to leave the government.” Two years ago it did
happen that Nehru said: "I want to leave the government.”
His intention was to introduce his ideas into that
single party so that later on, because there was only
that one party, re-shaping could be effected. Look at
conditions in Burma, they are similar; it may be said
there is only one party, the A.F.L., the Anti-Fascist
League. U Nu said one day: "Things are not right; I
am going to leave the government." Why leave? Because
he wanted to return to 100 per cent activity within the22
A. F. L., the Anti-Fascist League; in this way he could
influence the A.P.L.; and thus re-shaping could be effect-
ed, because there was only one party.
How are things in Indonesia, Brothers and Sister?
We have not one party, not two,nor three, nor four, nor
five, nor six, nor seven parties—not even ten or twenty
or thirty or forty parties! We have more than forty po-
litical parties! In addition, there are also some
’’sieur" /^flea-size//,parties, "gurem" parties#. Now, in
these conditions, Brothers and Sisters, I cannot proceed
in the manner of Nehru or U Nu. Moreover, I am now Non-
Party. I am not a member of any party. Gek /queer/,
there are so very many parties. What is the way? After
eleven years it is clear that the policy of liberalism
has failed. Indeed, I said some time ago that it would.
After eleven years it is evident that parliamentary de-
mocracy just cannot bring us to that which is inscribed
in golden letters in our Constitution, namely, a just and
prosperous society.
Well, what is there to do. Things must be re-shaped.
We must re-shape and how are we going to do the re-shaping?
I cannot say like Jawaharlal Nehruj_ Well, I’ll leave the
government or the Freedom J’alace /presidency/. This can-
not be done, Brothers and Sisters. Because if I leave—
well—these many parties! Which should I join, Brothers
and Sisters? Conditions in Indonesia are different from
conditions in the Soviet Union or in Burma. Take a look,
Brothers and Sisters, how different the conditions are.
I'll explain further.
Take, for example, again the Soviet Union. Excuse
me—the Ambassador for the Soviet Union is also sitting
here. The Ambassador of the Soviet Union. How are con-
ditions in the Soviet Union? They are as in other inde-
pendent states. There is a government, but how does
that government come into being in the Soviet Union?
The Soviet Union is composed of a people, a people who
number 200 million, and this people elects a grand coun-
cil, a Supreme Council called the Supreme Soviet. The
members of this Supreme Soviet, more than one thousand
in number, are elected by a people of two hundred million.
The Supreme Soviet elects a Presidium. This Presidium
* That is tiny parties, splinter parties.23
elects Ministers. There you are--t.hat is the Government.
So, look at the Government in the Soviet Union, Brothers
and Sisters: it is elected from and by the Presidium,
the Presidium is elected by the Supreme Soviet, the
Supreme Soviet is elected by the people.
Don't you feel that the Government—-or let’s say
here, the Cabinet--is an extension of the community?
The community elects the Supreme Soviet: the Supreme
Soviet elects the Presidium, the Presidium elects the
Administration.
The government is thus an extract from the communi-
ty, an extract from the people. For that reason,
things are extremely easy, Brothers and Sisters. To put
something into effect, the Government takes action and
is followed by the whole people. For, is the Government
not an extract from the people?
How is our situation here? Our situation is that
we have not one party or two or three, but more than
forty, as I said.
A while ago, general elections were held to elect
parties,_that is, general elections for Parliament--the
D.P.R. /Dewan Perwakilan Rakjat/ Yes, at that time par-
ties were elected, not persons ~ That which was voted
for was a party; that which was punched /on the ballots/7
--what was it? A party--a picture /symbol/7 of a party"?
Thus we voted for parties. This parliament may be then
regarded as the choice of the people.
But how is a Cabinet constituted or formed in Indo-
nesia, Brothers and Sisters? For its formation in Indo-
nesia, read such and such an article in the Constitution:
"The President shall appoint one or more formateurs."
For example, I appoint Mr. Ipik Gandamana. I select
Mr. Ipik Gandamana as formateur. He accepts. He con-
ducts consultations, or he does not. But one day he
appears at the Freedom Palace bearing a list of names:
"Here, Father President, is the list of names of minis-
ters I propose to you." I look at it. Oh yes, that list
is acceptable. I say to Mr. Ipik Gandamana: "All-right"
I accept this composition. I swear in the group of per-
sons to become the Cabinet. The Cabinet goes to work,
that is, the Cabinet formed by Mr. Ipik Gandamana. From
time to time a formateur fails. Let’s take it that the
formateur does not fail (observe that from time to time
he does not fail because there is no horse trading
involved.) Will you please pay close attention to this24
Cabinet of Mr. Ipik Gandamana’s making. How are its
relations with the Parliament? Parliament does not feel
that it has made this Cabinet. Parliament even peers
watchfully at this Cabinet, the Cabinet formed by Mr.
Ipik Gandamana in accordance with the Provisional Consti-
tution of the Republic of Indonesia. As President, I
have the prerogative to appoint a formateur. This forma-
teur proposes the composition of a Cabinet. I endorse
its compositipn and thus it becomes the Cabinet. Hah,
and this Cabinet, Brothers and Sisters, is glowered at
by Parliament—watched suspiciously all the time. Always
watched. If it makes a small mistake it is criticized; a
small mistake—criticism; another small mistake, and it
falls. Crisis. Ipik Gandamana’s Cabinet has fallen. I
appoint another formateur. This time I appoint, for
instance, Mr. Gatot Mangkupradja. "Gatot, will you
accept or not if I appoint you formateur? Will you form
a Cabinet?” There comes a day when he too brings a list.
I approve, and I install it. Gatot Mangkupradja’s Cabi-
net goes to work. But it too is distrusted by Parliament.
A mistake—criticism; a mistake—it’s criticized; another
mistake—crisis. Maybe I should call in the press?
"Gatot has fallen Mr. Soekrisno, I appoint you as for-
mateur Will^ you accept or not?" Soekrisno says: "All
right, Pak /Father7, I’ll form a Cabinet." Mr. Soekrisno
forms a Cabinet according to the same procedure, but Soe-
krisno ’s Cabinet too, is mistrusted by Parliament. And
so it goes on and on, Brothers and Sisters.
There is always mistrustful watching, between Parlia-
ment and Cabinet. This is the greatest shortcoming of
our governmental structure. For this reason, I, who feel
responsible as a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia,
like you, too, who feel responsible, like General Nasution
who also feels responsible, like Pak Roeslan Abdulgani
who feels responsible, like Pak Soewirjo who feels respon-
sible, like Brother Manuabe who feels responsible, like
Brother Chairul Saleh who feels responsible, like all of
you who feel responsible. I make bold to state: this
system is not good. It must be ghanged.
Shape and re-shape, shape and re-shape, shape and
re-shape-r-en ik heb de mo~ed—/and I have the courage/—
thanks be to God—to re-shapeT Whether it be accepted or
not by the People of Indonesia, I leave that to them,
Brothers and Sisters. But I propose this re-shaping
from a full sense of responsibility. What is this re-
shaping, Brothers and Sisters? This re-shaping is needed25
because, yes, things have miscarried so badly, things
have gone too far. I propose that between Parliament
and the People a bridge be created, namely the National
Council. A National Council which is composed in the
first place of outstanding men of the functional groups
of society. This National Council is the bearer of all
the wishes of the community. This National Council is
an extract from the community. On the other hand, this
National Council also activates the whole community,
becoming a mighty bridge, (as I said in the speech when
I submitted "Bung Karno’s Concept" to the people), a
mighty bridge between the Government (as an extract
from Parliament, because it is this Parliament which
must watch over the Government), and Society. This is
the heart and core of my purpose in setting up the
National Council.
It is entirely wrong when people say that this
National Council is merely to settle regional problems.
Altogether wrong.' Yes, indeed, I say, the problem of
the regional territories is certainly a difficult pro-
blem. Indeed we must solve the regional problems,
certainly the problem of the regions must be normalized
by the Republic as quickly as possible. Certainly!
But do not think that I have proposed the creation of
the National Council solely to solve regional problems.
No, not at all! Whoever wishes to understand my propo-
sal—the Lord be praised, the government has already
accepted the proposal for the National Council—he must
understand my whole line of thought, beginning with the
breakdown of the political system of liberalism. Under-
stand this, Brothers and Sisters, understand—this is
the basis of my proposal to set up that National Council.
It means that the liberal policy will not be sufficient
and will not be able to bring us to what is written in
our Constitution, namely a just and prosperous society.
Because our system, as written in the Constitution
—namely parliament, formateur, constitutional president,
and the rest of it—is in fact a reflection of the poli-
cy of liberalism, I have proposed the establishment of
the National Council.
And I am convinced, Brothers and Sisters, utterly
convinced,that we will proceed towards improvement, pro-
ceed towards improvement through the existence of this
National Council. Because, with the existence of this
National Council there has been created, as I said a26
while ago, a mighty bridge between the Government and
society. Is it my conviction that only through the
National Council will it be possible to resolve the pro-
blem of the regions? That is a different matter, Bro-
thers and Sisters, a different matter. The problem of
the regions is only one out of scores, hundreds, possibly
thousands of problems which we must resolve. This pro-
blem of the regions is only one out of many tasks which
confront the government and people of Indonesia at this
moment.
But it is clear to me, Brothers and Sisters, that
through the present system we shall not attain what we
desire, that is the ideals of our revolution of 17th
August 1945, nor even our halier ideals. Once this
fact is realized, Brothers and Sisters, perhaps people
will be more tolerant towards me. For indeed, I am pro-
posing something altogether new. Yes, something new; I
do not deny this. I call this a new style; certainly it
is new. And whoever in a revolution is unwilling, is
not bold enough to undertake innovation, he does not
have a revolutionary spirit, I say.
Brothers and Sisters, today we are commemorating
the thirty years since the emergence of Marhaenism.
Once again I say to you: In the first part of this ad-
dress I showed you a portrait of 1927; this was your por-
trait in 1927, my portrait in 1927, the portrait of Bung
Gatot in 1927, the portrait of Bung Sujudi in 1927, of
Pak Madroi in 1927, of B'ang Samiun in 1927, the portrait
of Marhaen in 1927. This was your portrait.
Now Brothers and Sisters, let us all look in the
mirror. As I said a while ago, look at your face today.
Is it the same, or not, as the portrait of 1927? If it
is the same, thanks to God who be praised, I say. If
it is not the same, then--self-correction! Change your-
selves! Change the sphere of your thoughts! Change your
actions! For, truly, our revolution is not yet completed.
Our ideals have not yet been attained. We now have a
state, and a state which is based_upon what I called in
the book "Lahirnja Pantja Sila" /The Birth of Pantja Sila7,
the essence of all the feelings and sentiments which for
decades, for hundreds and thousands of years, have dwelt
in the soul of the People of Indonesia. Did I not say
in the book "The Birth of Pantja Sila" that Pantja Sila
/the Five Principles/ could be compressed into three, into
Tri-rSila, namely the Belief in God, Socio-nationalism and27
Socio-democracy? Did I not say this Tri-Sila could be
compressed further to become one, Eka Sila, namely,
Gotong-rojong*? Thus, if I propose^ for example, a
Gotong-rojong Cabinet** together with this National
Council which is also based upon Gotong-rojong, I have
neither strayed nor deviated from our original ideals.
There are those who say: "Oh, Bung Karno, he now
has become a communist." Especially since I returned
from my journey to the Soviet Union and to the People’s
Republic of China, and expressed my highest apprecia-
tion for what I saw in the Soviet Union and in China,
people are saying: "Bung Karno has become a communist."
I am not a communist, I still hold to Pantja Sila, I am
still the Soekarno of 1927, Brothers and Sisters!
The Soekarno of 1927 has not changed, praised be
the Lord, Brothers and Sisters. I look at my portrait
of 1927 and I look at my portrait of today in 1957—it
is still the same as in 1927. Who has changed, Brothers
and Sisters? They say I have become a communist.’ What
stupidity! This terminology is all too well known.
Formerly, when we used to say: "Indonesia Merdeka Now",
--"Indonesia Merdeka Now",—Indonesia Merdeka Now" /Tln-
dependent Indonesia Now//7, we were said to be communists
too. All is communist, everything is communist, every-
one is a communist, until, as I said in the Empress
cinema, if one is angry with his wife because her sauce
isn’t savoury enough—she too is a communist! Yes—
indeed, indeed it is like that. Today the same thing is
being repeated again. No, not at all! I am still /as
I was in7 1927. Of course, there probably are changes
or errors. No human being, Brothers and Sisters, is free
of mistakes. And if there are mistakes in me, Brothers
and Sisters—God the Supreme Who be praised, willing
—if you will point them out to me, I will engage in
self-correction.
* (jotong-rojong (pronounced gotong royong) is the old
Indonesian concept of mutual assistance, cooperative
endeavor, etc.
** Soekarno’s idea of a gotong rojong cabinet was one
that would include all four of the major political
parties of Indonesia: P.N.I. (Nationalist Party),
Masjumi, Nahdatul Ulama, and the P.K.I. (Indonesian
Communist Party).28
But steadfastly, we all hold to our aim. This aim
is fixed. Do not deviate from this aim. Has the golden
bridge been finished? Do not lose sight of it. Revolu-
tionary mass action for our task of upbuilding—have we
deviated from that? Revolutionary mass action for the
task of upbuilding, Brothers and Sisters, as depicted for
instance in my accepted proposal to set up the "Petera"
Ministry, the Ministry for Pengerahan Tenaga Rakjat—
"Assembling the People’s Energies", for upbuilding. Who-
ever holds to the principle of revolutionary mass action,
will understand the need for this Petera Ministry. Peo-
ple who do not understand the need for the Petera Minis-
try are not mass-revolutionaries.’
Brothers and Sisters, I repeat; If I look at my
face in the mirror, "Eh", I can say, "I am still the
same." The Soekarno of 1927 is the Soekarno of today.
My feelings? Yes indeed, Brothers and Sisters, it may
be said here: At first hunted by the Dutch, and finally
the first President of Indonesia. I was not the only
prey of the Dutch—indeed no. There were comrades who
were wanted by the Dutch much more than I. For me, how
many years in jail, Brothers and Sisters? Only a total
of a little more than three years. How many years was
I in exile? Nine and a half years, Brothers and Sisters.
But there are comrades of ours who were kept in exile in
the midst of the jungle for tens of years. There are
comrades of our who were kept in jail for tens of years.
There are comrades of ours who were shot down by the
Dutch. There are comrades of ours who died upon the
gallows. What is my small sacrifice compared with the
sacrifices made by our comrades in order to achieve
Independent Indonesia and to realize a just and prospe-
rous society?
INDONESIA—A MYTHOS*
I am now called the first President of the Republic
of Indonesia only because of the people. This morning
I again repeated this to the students: "I became the
President of the Republic of Indonesia," I said, "because
of the People. Without the People, without the marhaen,
I am nothing." I gave them my ideas about Marhaenism,
While using the Greek form for myth, mythos, Soekarno
seems to imbue this term with the meaning of a sacred
source of inspiration.29
as well as about the need for a golden bridge, about the
need to spur revolutionary mass action, in all sincerity,
out of devotion to our Native Land and People, devotion
to Indonesia—that Indonesia which, for me, as I said in
Serang and Madiun, is something which I could almost
call a mythos. In 1927 what was Indonesia for me and
for you, Brothers and Sisters? Remember my speeches,
Brothers and Sisters, both in the Empress cinema and also
before the Court, when I told you what Indonesia was?
Was Indonesia just a chain of islands, from Java with
Sumatra, Kalimantan, Sulawesi, Bali, Lombok, Sumbawa,
Flores, Sumba, to the other islands, the Moluccas, and
Irian? Is only that Indonesia? Is Indonesia only what
is drawn on the map, Brothers and Sisters? Is that
Indonesia?
No! Indonesia is not only that. Indonesia for us,
Brothers and Sisters, is all of nature which enchants us.
We listen to Indonesia when we listen to the soft voice
of a singing bird. We listen to Indonesia when at Tji-
lauteureum we hear the waves of the Indian Ocean pound-
ing on the beach. We listen to Indonesia when we hear
the wind sighing in the jungles of Mt. Burangrang. We
feel that we drink Indonesia when we drink the waters of
the village well. We feel part of Indonesian nature
when we see the flowers along the roads. We feel we are
part of Indonesian nature when we hear the sweet Indone-
sian songs. It is even more than that, Brothers and
Sisters—and, therefore, in 1945 I proposed to the Peo-
ple of Indonesia that we should use the Pantja Sila
/Five Principles/ and, as the first principle, Belief in
God. God who is glorified in all of nature, God the One,
this God who for me is mirrored also in Indonesia, Bro-
thers and Sisters. I do not say that God is Indonesia;
not at all. But when I recall the five years of my life
in Flores, how, as I sat on the shore at sundown, Bro-
thers and Sisters, I listened to the wild roar of the
waves dashing upon the beach, and as I sat alone lost in
thought on that Flores shore, I heard not only the sea.
It was as though I heard the sea chanting a song of
praise to God Almighty: Oh God my Lord, you have given
our people such beauty as this. If I recall when I was
in Bengkulu, I would often leave the town and enter the
jungle; the breeze would rustle softly through the trees,
leaves would fall to the earth. That wind, Brothers and
Sisters, rustling softly in the forest, that wind, to
my ears, was singing soft praises, Indonesia's praises
to the Almighty.30
Indonesia for me is a mythos, Brothers and Sisters—
not merely Java plus Sumatra plus Kalimantan plus Bali,
Lombok and so on. No.’ Indonesia, as I said is—yes, its
soil—that is Indonesia; its beautiful mountains of glo-
rious shimmering blue, those are Indonesia; the white
bulging clouds are Indonesia; the dome of the blue sky
above our earth is Indonesia; the radiance of the eyes
of little children by the roadside is Indonesia; the
songs chanted at Tjilauteureum, Brothers and Sisters,
these are Indonesia; the savoury foods we eat are Indone-
sia. All of this is Indonesia for us. Indonesia for us
is the totality of all the feelings that live deep in our
hearts and which make us ready to struggle, ready to work
our fingers to the bone, ready to make sacrifices, ready
to go to the gallows, ready to be exiled to the jungle
for tens of years, this is Indonesia, Brothers and Sisters
REMEMBER YOUR OATH—BE TRUE TO YOUR IDEALS
For this Indonesia we should all feel responsible,
Brothers and Sisters. Once again: responsible! Respon-
sible to the utmost. If you feel fully responsible, Bro-
thers and Sisters, you will never be tardy in doing
whatsoever be needful. Therefore, you, the people of the
Indonesian Nationalist Party, my comrades of long ago,
my friends, remember your oath of 1927. If you desire
to put yourselves at the service of Indonesia you must
be steadfastly devoted to this single ideal. Be faithful
always to your oath made at that time, Brothers and
Sisters.
Let us continue onwards, in order to attain what we
have cherished as our ideals and what we have proclaimed,
and what we have worked for, and what we have organized
for, since thirty years ago.
Thank you.