Rioting provoked by anarchic actions of authorities<\/p>\n
The rule of law ended in the capital this week following the
\nfatal shooting of four university students on Tuesday. Mochtar
\nBuchori, an observer of social and cultural affairs, speculates
\non what caused the anarchy.<\/p>\n
Question: What lifted the rioters to such anarchic heights?<\/p>\n
Mochtar: They resorted to anarchy in response to an anarchic
\naction on the part of the authorities -- the killing of four
\ndemonstrating students on their way back into their campus. Their
\nreaction was so vehement because they felt their rights had been
\ndenied for too long by the authorities. They felt their sense of
\njustice had been violated with impunity, that their views had
\nbeen ignored, and that they were always treated in a completely
\narbitrary manner.<\/p>\n
The outburst of anger did not come from students but from
\nthose who were hungry and felt they had been neglected by the
\nauthorities for too long. Students are not anarchists and the
\nargument that students might cause anarchy if they are allowed to
\ndemonstrate outside their campuses is not valid.<\/p>\n
So, the student deaths detonated an explosion of long-
\nrestrained anger against anarchic acts carried out by the
\nauthorities. The ultimate source of the lawlessness was not the
\nstudents, but the unjust and tyrannical actions of the
\nauthorities.<\/p>\n
Q: How can you say the authorities have committed an anarchic act
\nwhile striving to prevent demonstrations from descending into
\nanarchy?<\/p>\n
M: The definition of anarchy is widely misunderstood. The
\ndefinition of anarchy, as suggested by Dom Helder Camara, is any
\naction which breaks the form of order, but the government seems
\nto define it as any action against the government. That is why
\nthe authorities never realize they have been acting anarchically.
\nWhen they do, it usually comes in the form of tyrannical violence
\nor oppression. On the other hand, they regard street vendors as
\nanarchists when they break government rules.<\/p>\n
Q: Can you give examples of tyrannical violence perpetrated by
\nthe authorities?<\/p>\n
M: When local administrations evict residents from their own
\nhouses, even when they hold land certificates, just so they can
\ngive the land to property developers, then they are acting
\ntyrannically.<\/p>\n
Corruption, cutting civil servant salaries and forcing
\nstudents to buy uniforms from their schools are also examples of
\ntyrannical violence and anarchy.<\/p>\n
Q: How have the authorities managed to act in such a way without
\nrealizing it?<\/p>\n
M: Because high-ranking officials conduct anarchic actions which
\nare of benefit to themselves, their subordinates try to imitate
\nthem and seek similar benefits. If the President's children, for
\nexample, are allowed to indulge in certain business activities,
\ndespite regulations to the contrary, the children of governors,
\nregents and mayors will follow suit. This practice is tantamount
\nto anarchy because it violates the form of order.<\/p>\n
Q: How did the nation become entrapped in this condition?<\/p>\n
M: The situation arose because of the absence of public debate
\nand democracy in the country. All civil servants, for example,
\nnow exist only to justify decisions and measures taken by the
\ngovernment. Any actions of the government must, therefore, be
\ncorrect. In short, the use of reason has been overruled by the
\nuse of power. Valid arguments raised by demonstrating students
\nare overruled by power wielded by the authorities.<\/p>\n
The use of reason was a guiding principle in Indonesia during
\nthe 1950s, when the government was committed to democracy.
\nHowever, reasoning was banished by president Sukarno when he
\nintroduced guided democracy in 1963. We started using reason
\nagain in 1966, when the New Order government attempted to reform
\nthe political and economic structures of the country. President
\nSoeharto invited intellectuals to devise new strategies for
\neconomic development and instructed the military to ensure social
\nstability.<\/p>\n
But reasoning died again in 1971, when the New Order
\ngovernment limited the number of political parties and their
\noperations on the pretext of maintaining political stability to
\nguarantee economic improvement.<\/p>\n
Q: Do you foresee a return of the use of reason or democracy once
\npolitical reform has been introduced?<\/p>\n
M: I hope so. On principle, we must amend the existing five
\npolitical laws, which have \"killed\" democracy. We must introduce
\nnew laws which guarantee political parties the freedom to make
\ndecisions. Political parties, for example, should be given the
\nopportunity to elect their own leaders without any government
\nintervention. Good parties will never elect \"criminals\" as their
\nleaders.<\/p>\n
Respect for freedom of speech, which is the essence of
\ndemocracy, and other basic human rights, must be revived. The
\npress, therefore, should be given freedom to publish factual
\nevents.<\/p>\n
However, we must be careful because democracy cannot be
\nestablished among a politically illiterate population.
\nUnfortunately, our people still fall into this class. (riz)<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/rioting-provoked-by-anarchic-actions-of-authorities-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}