Daftarsbmptn.com – Every nation has great figures who are remembered with reverence, but also with long-standing debate. Figures always harbor a paradox: between merit and pain, between influence and historical sin.
In the Indonesian context, the debate surrounding the planned designation of Suharto as a national hero sharply reflects this dilemma.
Some people remember him as the Father of Development who brought economic stability and infrastructure progress; others remember him as an authoritarian ruler who suppressed freedom, leaving a trail of human rights violations and systemic corruption.
Suharto is a classic example of a figure who, on the one hand, rendered great contributions, but on the other, gave rise to social trauma and historical wounds that have not yet fully healed. The question is: can someone be respected for their work if their morality and actions cause suffering?
Between Work and Morality
In evaluating figures, people often fall into two extremes: glorifying them without criticism, or rejecting them completely. Yet, humans are always complex. A leader can bring progress while oppressing others, a philosopher can teach the truth while being morally lost.
In ethical studies, there are two approaches to understanding this paradox.
First, the hermeneutic-critical approach, which separates the work from the person. Figures like Martin Heidegger, for example, remain revered as great philosophers of the 20th century for their analysis of human existence, despite their involvement in Nazi ideology. His profound thought remains crucial to the history of philosophy, but must be read with full awareness of its moral fallibility.
Conversely, the second, moralistic-holistic approach rejects this separation. According to this approach, action and thought are one and the same. A figure cannot be separated from the values they live by. If a leader proves oppressive or a thinker misleading, that figure loses moral legitimacy. Both approaches emphasize that respecting great works should not mean turning a blind eye to the historical wounds they leave behind.
Nietzsche and the Dangers of Interpretation
The ambivalence of personality is also evident in the world of philosophy through the figure of Friedrich Nietzsche. He is known as a radical philosopher who dared to proclaim the “death of God” and called for the birth of a superior man (Übermensch)—a man who creates new values after the collapse of old morality.
However, after his death, Nietzsche’s thoughts were misunderstood and manipulated to support the Nazi totalitarian ideology. Ironically, Nietzsche, who rejected nationalism and violence, was instead used as a symbol of racial supremacy by a regime that oppressed humanity.
This tragedy reveals another aspect of ambivalence: that even great ideas can lose their way if interpreted without moral responsibility.
If Suharto presented a dilemma between economic success and humanitarian abuse, and Heidegger between intellectual clarity and political engagement, then Nietzsche demonstrates the dilemma between depth of thought and misinterpretation.
These three figures demonstrate the spectrum of ambivalence in personality: from actions and thoughts to interpretation. They reveal human fragility in the face of power, ideas, and history, as well as the dangers when intelligence is not balanced with ethical wisdom.|
The politics of memory and reconciliation
The debate about great figures is not merely about individuals, but part of the politics of memory, namely, how societies interpret the past to shape their moral identity. Collective memory has always been a battleground between respect and recognition of historical sins.
When some people want to elevate Suharto as a hero, they are not just talking about a man, but about how the nation wants to remember the New Order: as a time of stability and progress, or as a time of silence and fear?
Similarly, Heidegger and Nietzsche in the philosophical tradition. Both mark the moral struggle of modern Europe: between rational clarity and historical darkness. Here we learn that intellectual enlightenment does not necessarily mean moral enlightenment.
The politics of memory demands historical honesty. Elevating a figure also means assuming responsibility for the memories that accompany them. Erasing or whitewashing the past actually denies the nation the opportunity to learn from its mistakes.
Moral Lessons
Philosopher Hannah Arendt once wrote about the banality of evil: that great evil can arise not from extreme hatred, but from moral unconsciousness and blind obedience to the system.
We can see this symptom in every ambivalence of a figure, when intelligence, power, or influence are not accompanied by deep moral reflection. A nation that only values intelligence without cultivating integrity will continue to produce great figures who lack conscience. For what makes a person truly “great” is not their achievements, but the humanitarian values they leave behind after their power ends.
We can respect their work without turning a blind eye to the wounds they leave behind.
From Suharto, we learn about the dangers of power without correction; from Heidegger, we learn about the risks of intelligence without morality; and from Nietzsche, we learn about the dangers of interpretation without responsibility.
All three demonstrate that true leadership is not measured by intelligence or power, but by loyalty to truth and humanity. They are a mirror for this nation, encouraging it to look at history honestly, not to judge, but to learn. True leadership is not measured solely by what is built, but by the values left behind after all power and honor have been lost.
A society that dares to reflect on the ambivalence of its leaders is a morally mature society, one that does not erase the past but reinterprets it with an open heart.
*) Pormadi Simbolon, observer of social, educational, and cultural issues; alumnus of the Master of Philosophy degree at STF Driyarkara Jakarta