Mass violence and the problem of managing pluralities<\/p>\n
By Mochtar Buchori<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): Each eruption of mass violence across the
\ncountry signals the government's inability to contain such
\nviolence, raising fears of disintegration. If both the national
\nand local administrations fail to stop mass violence and restore
\norder, what will be left?<\/p>\n
Chaos, anarchy and the emergence of local warlords! The
\ncountry could be subdivided into local \"entities\" -- to use
\nMoynihan's term -- that are neither \"states\" nor \"governments\".<\/p>\n
I do not share this pessimistic view. Not every recent
\nincident of mass violence has been caused by a collective desire
\nfor a sovereign state. Often the causes are our failure in
\nmanaging our pluralities -- which are basically ethnic, religious
\nand cultural -- and the social and economic gap.<\/p>\n
Ethnic and religious pluralities have been the main causes of
\nmany incidents of mass violence since 1995. The recent violence
\nin Pontianak, West Kalimantan, was ethnic-based, while the
\nviolence in North Maluku, Ambon, and Poso, Central Sulawesi,
\ninvolved followers of different religions.<\/p>\n
Anyone or any group of people living in a pluralistic
\nenvironment have two options, i.e. either to accept the
\ndifferences inherent in every pluralistic environment, or to
\nreject these pluralities.<\/p>\n
If a community or society can accept the differences arising
\nfrom plurality, then it will do its utmost to \"tame\" the initial
\nprejudices that come with plurality and build a peaceful and
\ncollaborative society. No party will resort to violence to solve
\nproblems that may come from that plurality.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, a society that cannot accept these
\ndifferences will do everything possible to erase these
\ndifferences and impose homogeneity based on the preference of one
\nparty.<\/p>\n
Such communities will in the end be fragmented into smaller
\ngroups that hate each other, and will end up fighting each other
\nindefinitely. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which split up
\ninto Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia, is just one case in point.<\/p>\n
The difference between the beneficial and harmful management
\nof pluralities lies in how a society treats the inherent
\nprejudices.<\/p>\n
In a society which aims to create a peaceful and collaborative
\ncoexistence, prejudices are first turned into mutual tolerance
\nthrough the promotion of better mutual understanding.<\/p>\n
This mutual tolerance is next used as the basis for creating
\nmutual acceptance and mutual inclusion. In societies with a
\nhigher degree of civility the process does not stop here. Mutual
\ninclusion would further be promoted into \"mutualities\", i.e. the
\nsocial capability to embrace differences, to find \"beauty\" in
\ndifferences and ultimately to find enjoyment in living in those
\ndifferences.<\/p>\n
This is what has happened in Britain among British Muslims who
\nare the descendants of immigrants from the former British India.
\nThis is a long process, requiring the participation of a
\nsignificant number of people at each step.<\/p>\n
In societies where psychological forces emanating from those
\ninitial prejudices are unbridled, dislike, hatred and social
\nanger will develop.<\/p>\n
Some community leaders can then manipulate the situation to
\nforce other groups to give up their identity and aspirations in
\nexchange for theirs. The result: tension and the loss of lives.<\/p>\n
A society which cannot resolve psychological conflicts
\nemanating from initial prejudices will never become creative. It
\nis impossible for anyone or any group to lead a creative
\nexistence if one is constantly preoccupied with the desire to
\ndominate others, or feels threatened by violence.<\/p>\n
Most countries today have multicultural populations, meaning
\npeople with different backgrounds, be it ethnic, religious,
\ncultural or any other distinction.<\/p>\n
Even some Nordic countries, which for centuries were
\npredominantly white, are now gradually becoming multicultural.<\/p>\n
I was very surprised when in 1986 I saw a black Swede working
\nas a public servant in a government institution. The presence of
\nblack or other \"nonindigenous\" players on a number of European
\nsoccer teams is another indication of this changing situation.<\/p>\n
No country is perfectly capable of solving problems related to
\npluralities. Australia is still troubled with its Aborigines. In
\nthe United States, after African-Americans achieved significant
\nvictories in their battle against racism, there is still the
\nproblem of Chicanos and native Americans.<\/p>\n
In Canada, the problem of native Americans is still unsolved.
\nThe International Herald Tribune reported on Nov. 3 that some
\n16,000 native Americans were to submit \"some form of claim\"
\ndemanding compensation for the sexual and cultural abuses they
\nsuffered during their years in boarding schools, which they were
\nforced to attend.<\/p>\n
In Germany, the political headache for the government and
\nsociety stems from the issue of permanent \"guest workers\".<\/p>\n
This is because certain German politicians have insisted that
\nthe German culture should be accepted as the \"defining culture\"
\n(Leitkultur) among the immigrants; and in their daily
\ninteractions with native Germans the \"otherness\" of these
\nimmigrants has always been emphasized by extreme right
\npoliticians.<\/p>\n
Yet, in spite of all those shortcomings we have not seen
\nviolence in these countries on a scale even remotely close to the
\ntragedies in Indonesia.<\/p>\n
Even in Germany, where \"patriotic\" skinheads sometimes commit
\nacts of violence against Turks and Jews, the number of people
\nkilled or tortured has been infinitesimal compared to Indonesia.<\/p>\n
So, what is wrong with Indonesia and how can we get out of
\nthis torturous condition? There was a time when people of
\ndifferent ethnic origins, faiths, traditions and habits used to
\nlive together in peace here.<\/p>\n
It is impossible to prescribe a general formula or develop a
\nmodel of harmony in a short time.<\/p>\n
But there is one promising model -- that of Sofyan Tan in
\nMedan. A medical doctor turned educator, he initiated and
\ndeveloped a model for a mixed school (sekolah pembauran).<\/p>\n
The school has \"native\" children, Chinese-Indonesian children
\nand children from poor families, all educated in an environment
\nstriving to stimulate genuine integration.<\/p>\n
In his book Education of the Heart, he outlines his strategy.
\nPart of this is to build a mosque, a church and a Buddhist temple
\non one plot of land.<\/p>\n
This aims to stimulate interreligious understanding and
\ntolerance among students of different ethnic, religious and
\ncultural backgrounds.<\/p>\n
This may look like just a drop of water on a raging grass fire
\n-- which, sadly, it could prove to be unless other community
\nleaders follow suit with thousands of buckets of water, by
\nreplacing their fiery sermons with constructive steps to build
\nharmony.<\/p>\n
Replacing the present culture of mass violence with a culture
\nof tolerance and collaboration is virtually a national assignment
\nto transform society. Admittedly this will be a long and painful
\nprocess, requiring patience, perseverance and a willingness to
\nsacrifice.<\/p>\n
This is the psychological price that we will have to pay.<\/p>\n
Are we able and willing to pay this price?<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/mass-violence-and-the-problem-of-managing-pluralities-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }