Pancasila and the Jakarta Charter: the founding bargain of 1945 and why it still matters

Every Indonesian student learns that Pancasila was “born” on 1 June 1945, when Sukarno delivered his famous speech to the Investigating Committee for Preparatory Work for Independence (BPUPK). Fewer learn how contested the founding debates were, or how close the new state came to adopting a different formula. For postgraduate students of political science, the period from May to August 1945 is a revealing case of constitutional bargaining under extreme uncertainty. Its legacy is still argued over.

The setting

The BPUPK (often written BPUPKI) was set up under the Japanese occupation and held two sessions: 29 May to 1 June, and 10 to 17 July 1945. Its sixty-odd members included secular nationalists, Islamic leaders, aristocrats and representatives of minority groups. The Japanese defeat was approaching, but nobody knew when or how independence would come.

The central question was the dasar negara, the philosophical basis of the state. Broadly, two positions competed. Islamic nationalists, including Ki Bagus Hadikusumo of Muhammadiyah and figures linked to Nahdlatul Ulama, argued that a state with a Muslim-majority population should be based on Islam or should at least give Islamic law an official role. Secular or “religiously neutral” nationalists, including Sukarno, Mohammad Hatta and Supomo, argued for a state that belonged equally to all its citizens, whatever their religion.

Supomo’s speech on 31 May is often cited for his “integralist” (negara integralistik) idea of a state that unites rulers and ruled in an organic whole. Later scholars, notably David Bourchier, have shown how authoritarian governments revived this idea decades later.

Sukarno’s synthesis

Sukarno’s 1 June speech offered five principles: nationalism, internationalism or humanitarianism, consensus or democracy, social welfare, and belief in God. He also showed they could be reduced to three (Trisila) and finally to one: gotong royong, or mutual cooperation. The speech was a skilled attempt to create a framework that every group could accept. Belief in God was included, but it came last and in a non-denominational form.

The Jakarta Charter

The detailed compromise was negotiated by a smaller Committee of Nine (Panitia Sembilan), balanced between nationalist and Islamic members. On 22 June 1945 it produced a draft preamble later known as the Piagam Jakarta (Jakarta Charter). It moved belief in God to first place and added seven words: “dengan kewajiban menjalankan syariat Islam bagi pemeluk-pemeluknya” (“with the obligation for adherents of Islam to carry out Islamic law”).

The phrase was a compromise in its own right. It did not create an Islamic state, but it gave Islamic law a constitutional basis for Muslims. During the July session, members debated further demands, such as requiring the president to be Muslim.

18 August 1945: the seven words removed

Independence was proclaimed on 17 August. The next morning, the Preparatory Committee for Indonesian Independence (PPKI) met to adopt the constitution. Hatta later wrote that on the evening of 17 August, a Japanese naval officer told him that Christian representatives from eastern Indonesia objected to the seven words and might not join the republic if they remained. Hatta met Islamic leaders privately before the session. The seven words were removed. The first principle became “Ketuhanan Yang Maha Esa” (Belief in the One and Only God), and the requirement for the president to be Muslim was dropped.

Historians disagree about many aspects of this account: how serious the eastern objection was, whether it was used strategically, and how willingly the Islamic leaders agreed. R. E. Elson’s careful 2009 study in the journal Indonesia reconstructs the sources and argues that the episode was less a dramatic last-minute concession than the result of a longer process of negotiation, in which national unity at a dangerous moment was the priority. Many in the Islamic movement, however, remembered 18 August as a broken promise. Endang Saifuddin Anshari’s work (1979) records that sense of grievance.

The long afterlife

The 1945 bargain was revisited repeatedly.

• In the Konstituante (Constituent Assembly) of 1956–59, Islamic parties again proposed Islam as the basis of the state. Neither side could reach the required two-thirds majority. Sukarno’s decree of 5 July 1959, which restored the 1945 Constitution, declared that the Jakarta Charter “inspired” the constitution and formed “a unity” with it. That vague formula tried to satisfy both sides. Adnan Buyung Nasution’s study (1992) argues that the Konstituante was a serious, deliberative body that was closed down before it could finish its work.
• Under the New Order, Pancasila became a tool of state control: mandatory indoctrination courses (P4) and, from 1985, a requirement that every organisation adopt Pancasila as its sole basis (asas tunggal).
• In the constitutional amendments of 1999–2002, proposals to restore the seven words in Article 29 were raised again and rejected. Donald Horowitz (2013) treats this as an important moment of moderation in Indonesia’s democratic transition.

Analytical lessons

For comparative constitutional politics, 1945 illustrates three general points. First, founding moments create lasting reference points: actors return to them repeatedly, and losers in one round keep their claims for the next. Second, vague wording can be a strength: “Ketuhanan Yang Maha Esa” allowed different groups to read their own commitments into it. Third, who interprets the founding bargain matters as much as the text. Pancasila has been used as a pluralist compromise, a weapon of the state and a basis for civic identity.

Questions for seminar discussion

• Was the removal of the seven words a necessary concession for national unity, or a decision that weakened the legitimacy of the founding bargain?
• How did authoritarian governments use the “integralist” tradition, and does it still influence Indonesian constitutional thinking?
• Compare Indonesia’s approach to religion and state with India’s secularism or Malaysia’s constitutional position for Islam.

References and further reading

• Anshari, E. S. (1979). The Jakarta Charter of June 1945: A History of the Gentleman’s Agreement between the Islamic and the Secular Nationalists in Modern Indonesia. ABIM.
• Bourchier, D. (2015). Illiberal Democracy in Indonesia: The Ideology of the Family State. Routledge.
• Elson, R. E. (2008). The Idea of Indonesia: A History. Cambridge University Press.
• Elson, R. E. (2009). Another look at the Jakarta Charter controversy of 1945. Indonesia, 88, 105–130.
• Feith, H., & Castles, L. (Eds.). (1970). Indonesian Political Thinking 1945–1965. Cornell University Press.
• Horowitz, D. L. (2013). Constitutional Change and Democracy in Indonesia. Cambridge University Press.
• Kusuma, A. B. (2004). Lahirnya Undang-Undang Dasar 1945. Badan Penerbit Fakultas Hukum Universitas Indonesia.
• Latif, Y. (2011). Negara Paripurna: Historisitas, Rasionalitas, dan Aktualitas Pancasila. Gramedia Pustaka Utama.
• Nasution, A. B. (1992). The Aspiration for Constitutional Government in Indonesia: A Socio-Legal Study of the Indonesian Konstituante 1956–1959. Pustaka Sinar Harapan.