BONO B. PRIAMBODO & HARYO B. RAHMADI
When Sukarno and the members of the Investigating Committee for Preparatory Work for Independence (BPUPKI) drafted this phrasing in 1945, their synthesis generated a balanced philosophical engine: political deliberation must be guided by principled moral judgment (hikmat) and executed through pragmatic, harmony-seeking statecraft (kebijaksanaan). Stripped of hikmat, kebijaksanaan inevitably degenerates into unprincipled opportunism and opportunistic statecraft. Conversely, lacking kebijaksanaan, hikmat remains trapped in detached moralizing, incapable of negotiating the frictions of actual governance.
Beyond this compound concept, the terms Permusyawaratan and Perwakilan demonstrate how Indonesian constitutional architects adopted classical Arabic root nouns and processed them through the native Austronesian morphological system. The term Permusyawaratan originates from the Arabic root Shūra or Musyāwarah, signifying mutual consultation and exchange of views. By applying the active prefix ber-, the language forms the verb bermusyawarah (to engage in mutual deliberation). When this verb is enclosed within the standard Austronesian nominalizing circumfix per- … -an, it creates the abstract institutional noun permusyawaratan, which translates directly to the system, process, or body of mutual deliberation.
Similarly, Perwakilan originates from the Arabic root Wakīl, designating an agent, deputy, or individual entrusted to act on behalf of another. Applying the circumfix per- … -an directly to wakil yields perwakilan, meaning the institution, system, or agency of representation. This morphological process mirrors other core Indonesian legal and civic terms, such as deriving perdagangan (commerce) from dagang (to trade) or peradilan (the judiciary) from the Arabic-derived adil (just). Through this grammatical transformation, raw foreign concepts were internalized into the structural logic of the national language, providing an enduring vocabulary for democratic statecraft.
III. Classical Islamic Foundations and Constitutional Adaptations
The classical Arabic terminology selected by the Indonesian drafters carried centuries of theological, legal, and political development. Far from treating these terms as empty stylistic choices, the constitutional architects intentionally woven their deep legal and ethical connotations into the constitutional design of the new republic.
The concept of Shūra occupies a central position in classical Islamic political jurisprudence (Fiqh al-Siyasi). Historically, shūra was conducted among the Ahl al-Hall wa-l-‘Aqd—literally “those who loosen and bind”—a council composed of legal scholars (‘ulama), jurists, tribal leaders, and community elders recognized for their moral integrity, learning, and practical wisdom. Political legitimacy in this tradition was not derived from simple numerical superiority or unrefined popular sentiment, but from alignment with moral truth, expertise, and the preservation of the public welfare (maslahah). In transforming shūra into the constitutional principle of permusyawaratan, the 1945 drafters democratized its application across the general citizenry and elected parliamentary representatives. Crucially, however, they retained the classical insistence that deliberation must remain disciplined by hikmat, preventing the process from devolving into raw majoritarian preference-counting.
The term Wakil carries an equally profound legal and theological heritage. Originating from the triconsonantal root W-K-L, meaning to entrust, assign, or delegate care, Wakil appears in the Quran as one of the ninety-nine Divine Names (Al-Wakīl: The Ultimate Trustee, Guardian, and Protector). In classical jurisprudence (Tawkil), a wakil is not an unfettered agent or a self-interested actor, but a trustee bound by a sacred fiduciary obligation (Amanah). A wakil is legally and morally obligated to act strictly in the ultimate interest of the principal who conferred the trust. By embedding perwakilan into the Fourth Sila, the drafters defined political representation not as a transactional arrangement where politicians trade votes for influence, but as a sacred trust. An Indonesian representative is framed as a trustee holding a solemn obligation before both the sovereign people and the divine order.
The constitutional drafters within the BPUPKI included prominent Islamic scholars and statesmen such as Ki Bagus Hadikusumo, K.H. Wahid Hasyim, H. Agus Salim, Mr. Kasman Singodimedjo, and Abikoesno Tjokrosoejoso, working alongside secular and legal visionaries including Mr. Soepomo, Mr. Muhammad Yamin, and Ir. Sukarno. Assisting them in refining the language was the Panitia Penghalus Bahasa (Language Refining Committee), which featured legal scholar and linguist Prof. Dr. H. Hoesein Djajadiningrat. Together, these figures deliberately crafted the Fourth Sila to achieve three distinct institutional goals.
First, by requiring Hikmat, they built a constitutional guardrail against majoritarian tyranny, demagoguery, and capital-driven mob rule. They anchored public deliberation to substantive moral standards, reflecting the higher objectives of legal philosophy (Maqasid al-Shariah). Second, by establishing Permusyawaratan, they structured parliamentary bodies so that representatives would deliberate in the spirit of the Ahl al-Hall wa-l-‘Aqd—as thoughtful individuals seeking consensus through reasoned dialogue rather than partisan obstruction. Third, by establishing Perwakilan, they designated public office as an Amanah, elevating political service into a moral duty to the state and its citizenry.
IV. Comparative Theoretical Assessment: Efficacy and Limits of Western Deliberative Republicanism
To what extent can modern Western deliberative republicanism fully explain and accommodate these Indonesian constitutional concepts? A rigorous comparative assessment indicates that while Western deliberative republicanism serves as an essential explanatory framework, it ultimately proves insufficient to capture the full philosophical scope of the Fourth Sila.
Western deliberative republicanism offers significant analytical value, matching the Fourth Sila across three structural dimensions. First, the neo-republican principle of freedom as non-domination aligns directly with the Indonesian anti-colonial imperative (anti-penjajahan). Both frameworks repudiate arbitrary power, whether expressed through colonial subjugation, unchecked executive authority, majoritarian tyranny, or oligarchical control. Second, the requirement of public reason mirrors the core demand of hikmat kebijaksanaan. Both insist that political choices must be justified through shared, articulate moral and rational standards rather than raw power or financial leverage. Third, the insistence on institutional mediation through representative assemblies mirrors permusyawaratan perwakilan, as both systems favor structured deliberative institutions over unmediated plebiscites to refine popular passion into coherent public policy.
Despite these clear parallels, Western deliberative republicanism encounters distinct limitations when applied to the Fourth Sila due to three missing dimensions within its conceptual framework.
The first limitation is the absence of a transcendental and sacred dimension. Western deliberative republicanism is predominantly secular, procedural, and rationalist. It constructs public reason within a post-Enlightenment framework that deliberately excludes transcendent claims from public discourse. In contrast, the Fourth Sila functions within an integrated philosophical architecture anchored by the First Sila (Ketuhanan Yang Maha Esa). Within this framework, concepts such as Hikmat and Amanah carry explicit moral and spiritual accountability. Public reason in the Indonesian context is not merely an agreement among autonomous citizens; it is a moral responsibility that acknowledges a higher spiritual order.
