Age-old history of political violence cerates a vicious cycle

I Wayan Juniartha, The Jakarta Post, Denpasar, Bali

The recent spate of violence ignited by a clash between two political parties in which two people were brutally murdered has stunned many Balinese, who still believe their island is a cultural paradise inhabited by civilized, peace loving people.

However, local scholars have admitted that rage and violence has been rooted in the Balinese community for decades and with lesser connections to the differences in political beliefs as last Sunday's incident might suggest.

Historian Nyoman Wijaya and cultural observer Ketut Sumartha see the tragedy as the inevitable result of the cycle of violence that has gripped the island for hundreds of years, and the fragmentation of the island's once powerful unifying institutions.

"Political violence has always been an integral part of the island's power game. It is definitely not a new thing. The majority of Balinese are either not aware of this problem or pretend it does not exist," Wijaya said.

He said in feudal times Balinese princes and kings regularly undermined each other through rumor and by spying. When politics intensified the rulers simply sent poor farmers off to wage war. Many died.

"The recurring pattern is that the elites create the conflict and the grassroots supporters have to do the dirty jobs. Nowadays, the political elites fight each other with words, slogans and ideologies, while their supporters use sticks and stones," he said.

He said similar violence took place in the 1950s when the Continued Organization of All Indonesia Guerrillas (LOGIS) hunted down and killed 210 people all over Bali. LOGIS said the victims were Dutch collaborators during the war for independence.

Curiously, LOGIS was supported by the Indonesian Socialist Party (PSI) while a large number of the victims were from the Indonesian National Party (PNI). The violence took place on the eve of the 1955 general elections.

In 1965, Bali saw the most brutal political violence to date when supporters of religious-based political parties and military forces killed thousands from the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI), which was accused of staging a failed coup against then president Sukarno.

In a strange twist, many of the victims were actually the supporters of Sukarno's PNI.

The political violence ended the Sukarno era and gave birth to the New Order regime, which ruled Indonesia for 33 years with the help of it's effective electoral machine, namely Golongan Karya (Golkar), a political party that refused to be called a party.

On the eve of the 1971 general elections a new term, Bulelengisasi, was coined to represent Golkar's massive campaign to persuade the people of the island's northern regency of Buleleng, then the stronghold of the PNI and other nationalist parties, to switch sides.

The persuasion gradually became intimidation and eventually turned into oppression.

Undisclosed numbers of houses were either burned or demolished, and people were physically assaulted.

"This is a significant event if we want to understand the recent violent clashes in Buleleng. In the '70s Buleleng suffered the most brutal political violence compared to other regencies in Bali. Among the people of Buleleng the memory of that period is still vividly alive, the scars are still raw," Wijaya said.

Moreover, in December 1999 and early 1999, a few month before the general elections, Golkar supporters from the mountain villages of Cempaga, Pedawa and Sidatapa killed nine people in attacks on PDI Perjuangan supporters from Banjar village.

"Vengeance plays a pivotal role in the political violence. Sometimes, it is simply settling old scores rather than misguided expression," cultural observer Ketut Sumartha said.

Sumartha said the roots of political violence were not solely tied to political differences.

Given the fact that in 1997 the Balinese overwhelmingly voted for Golkar and two years later gave PDI Perjuangan a landslide victory, was, Sumartha noted, a clear indication that there were other elements that had sustained the cycle of violence.

"The first element is stupidity. What we have here are stupid people, who compensated for their lack of intelligence with sheer, brute force," he said.

The second element was the Balinese's somewhat excessive longing for a sense of communality, but unfortunately in this case, all members of the community were then expected to abide by a single, unified value, which included political values.

"For instance, if most of your fellow villagers are PDI Perjuangan supporters then you are expected to do the same; wearing the party's uniforms and erecting the party's flags. Otherwise, you will be viewed as an outsider or worse; an enemy. It is not about political expression, it is about being loyal to your community," he said.

On the other hand, Sumartha noted that many acts of political violence were perpetrated by Balinese youths.

This younger generation, he argued, had experienced a social dislocation and alienation from their traditional unifying institutions, such as village traditions, and finding out that political party provided them with such unifying institutions.

Both Wijaya and Sumartha agreed that prohibiting political parties from conducting mass rallies was the best short-term solution to end the political violence.

A longer-term strategy, however, would require many difficult endeavors, including political education and establishing new, non-political unifying institutions and introducing a new set of values on peaceful political power play.

"I believe that mass media have the moral responsibility to play an important role in the long-term strategy. Only through a non-partisan mass media, can we expect to educate and inform as many people as possible on this issue," Sumartha said.