Structural violence revisited<\/p>\n
By Aleksius Jemadu<\/p>\n
BANDUNG (JP): The recent riots in several places throughout
\nthe country has led us to believe that the only source of threat
\nto our nation-building will come from open conflict among
\ndifferent ethnic and religious groups in our pluralistic society.<\/p>\n
But the frequency and suddenness of the riots averted our
\nattention from another source of threat to the political system,
\nthe phenomenon of structural violence.<\/p>\n
This type of violence can damage the political system deep at
\nits roots. The nature of this violence means that we cannot
\neasily identify its presence without delving deeper into the
\nbasic assumptions of the functioning political system.<\/p>\n
A good political system responds quickly once there is a
\ndemand for improvement in the working of political institutions.
\nThere is some mechanism of built-in control to prevent
\nirregularities and infractions from occurring. This mechanism of
\nself-control can only function if political leaders are sensitive
\nenough in responding to aspirations from below.<\/p>\n
The concept of structural violence, introduced for the first
\ntime by John Galtung, refers to \"social structures leading to an
\nexpectation of life less than the biological potential...
\n(Kenneth Boulding, 1992). The decline of one's life expectancy in
\nthis regard is linked to political and economic deprivation.<\/p>\n
Structural violence exists if there is clear evidence that the
\nexpectation of life is below the biological potential as a result
\nof oppression, poverty, nutritional deficiencies, pollution,
\ndeforestation, corruption, human ignorance, and other social
\nproblems.<\/p>\n
This can be better understood if we make a distinction between
\ndifferent types of violence on the basis of whether or not there
\nis a subject (person) who commits a violent act.<\/p>\n
Based on this distinction, violence can be examined from two
\nviewpoints. First, there is personal or direct violence in which
\na person commits a violent act. Second, there is structural or
\nindirect violence where a person is hurt or mutilated. Any human
\nsuffering which is objectively avoidable can be said to be the
\nresult of structural violence even if there is no clear subject-
\naction-object relation.<\/p>\n
Thus, violence is committed when the functioning of a
\npolitical system systematically denies the opportunity of certain
\ngroups in society to articulate their basic interests. Structural
\nviolence can also exist when the political system unjustifiably
\nfavors the promotion of political and economic interests of the
\nruling elite to the effect that the grassroots are deprived of
\ntheir basic rights as legitimate carriers of the demand for
\nsocial and economic justice.<\/p>\n
In what sense can we say that structural violence could
\ninflict more damage to the political system?<\/p>\n
Material loss caused by direct violence can easily be
\nrecovered but the cost of social and economic injustice which is
\nstructurally embedded in the functioning of the political system
\ncannot be restored without a fundamental change in the basic
\nassumptions of the political system.<\/p>\n
Those who are already satisfied with the statusquo will resist
\neven a slight change in the prevailing modalities of the
\nconfiguration of social and economic power. The change could
\nshake their establishment.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the advantaged group will always try to maintain
\nthe existing modes of governance for the allocation and
\ndistribution of authoritative values in society.<\/p>\n
Normally a top to bottom approach in policy-making and
\nimplementation appears to be common practice.<\/p>\n
At the same time, the centralization of control is perceived
\nby the political elite as \"a necessary strategy for ensuring the
\nstrength and stability of the state, for neutralizing or
\neliminating potential competitors for power, for promoting
\nmodernization and national unity, and for countering the
\ncentrifugal effects of ethnic pluralism\". (Milton J. Esman, 1988)<\/p>\n
The definition of public interest in policy processes should
\nbe regarded not as an outcome of democratic debates over social
\nand economic problems but rather how the concept is perceived by
\nthe political elite or development managers within the framework
\nof loosely-defined political stability and a very open-ended
\ndefinition of national interest.<\/p>\n
Healing the wounds inflicted by the presence of structural
\nviolence will necessitate the political willingness of the ruling
\nelite to recognize people's sovereignty. Government officials may
\nutter words and slogans about democracy but their actions and
\ninactions speak louder than words.<\/p>\n
Our people are clever enough to make a distinction between
\nempty words and real commitment. Unlike the volatile situation of
\nthe revolutionary period, today Indonesia needs more effective
\ndevelopment managers and less orators. More real action and less
\nnonsensical statements are required.<\/p>\n
Unfortunately, where political power is so centralized,
\ngovernment bureaucrats prefer to seek favor from their superiors
\nor patrons and not from the people.<\/p>\n
To some extent such bureaucratic pathology is made possible by
\nthe fact that promotion within government bureaucracies is
\ndetermined more by favoritism and clientele relations rather than
\nmerit. Those who do not have connections with the ruling elite
\nwill have to be satisfied with their marginalized situation. This
\nis just another type of structural violence.<\/p>\n
Of particular importance in the process of democratizing the
\npolitical system is the improvement of the role of our democratic
\ninstitutions such as parliament, political parties, mass
\norganizations, trade unions, non-governmental organizations,
\nreligious groups and others.<\/p>\n
Given a conducive atmosphere, these institutions can do a lot
\nin balancing the pervasive domination of the executive power in
\nour political system.<\/p>\n
One of the common weaknesses of political systems in
\ndeveloping countries is the fact that their parliament is
\nsubordinated to the position of the executive power. Control
\nmechanisms from the legislative power tend to be ineffective
\nbecause the executive power can pressure political parties to
\nremove or \"recall\" members of parliament who act against the
\nexisting political establishment.<\/p>\n
It follows that the social and political consequences of
\nstructural violence can only be restored by a recourse to
\nstructural remedies from within the system. The statesmanship of
\nour political leaders is needed to improve our democracy.<\/p>\n
It is only with their initiative that the political system can
\ncure its structural illnesses. In a paternalistic society such as
\nours initiative from above is absolutely necessary. Good examples
\nfrom political leaders can motivate the people to participate in
\nthe process of development in a more accountable way.<\/p>\n
Unfortunately, as the political system increasingly represents
\nthe preservation of the statusquo, it is increasingly difficult
\nto find statespeople among so many politicians.<\/p>\n
The main difference between a statesperson and a politician is
\nthat a statesperson always tries to prioritize public interest
\nand safety while a politician always tries to manipulate public
\ninterest in order to perpetuate his or her own position.<\/p>\n
The more politicians there are instead of statespeople, the
\nmore our political life is replete with intrigue and nonsensical
\ngossip which could destabilize the whole system.<\/p>\n
This is precisely the reason why we need to be consistent in
\nour efforts to realize Pancasila democracy no matter how costly
\nit might be to the ruling elite.<\/p>\n
If not, more structural violence would be tacitly committed
\nand more mismanagement would result in the process of governance.<\/p>\n
It is important to be aware of the presence of structural
\nviolence in our social and political life. People should have
\nmore opportunities to participate in deciding their tomorrow. If
\nnot today, when? Tomorrow may never be ours.<\/p>\n
The writer is a lecturer in the faculty of social and
\npolitical sciences at the Catholic University of Parahyangan,
\nBandung. He obtained his Ph.D. in social sciences from KU Leuven,
\nBelgium.<\/p>\n
Window A: Violence is committed when the functioning of a
\npolitical system systematically denies the opportunity of
\ncertain groups in society to articulate their basic interests.<\/p>\n
Window B: The more politicians there are instead of statespeople,
\nthe more our political life is replete with intrigue and
\nnonsensical gossip which could destabilize the whole system.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/structural-violence-revisited-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}