A more civilized approach to eviction

Sirojudin Abbas Lecturer State Islamic University (UIN) Jakarta sirojudinabbas@yahoo.ca

The Jakarta administration is about to restart the highly controversial eviction program for illegal settlers in Jakarta and street vendors at the end of January 2004. Like those evicted earlier in 2003, those due for eviction in 2004 will face further risks of impoverishment. The Urban Poor Consortium (UPC) estimates about 8,500 families (47,500 people) will become homeless. But Jakarta Governor Sutiyoso believes that eviction is the most humane way for the administration to deal with poor squatters in the capital city.

Various sections of society have expressed strong opposition to this program. The UPC has consistently challenged the implementation of this policy, while, national and even international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have also voiced concern. At the end of 2003, the Center for Housing Rights and Eviction (COHRE) sent a letter of protest to president Megawati. This international NGO, moreover, classified Indonesia as the nation with the greatest violations in the world against housing rights.

However, this criticism remains ineffectual. Unless there are other, more humane ways to clean up the streets of Jakarta, the governor asserts, the administration will continue with this program. The question, then, if there were another way to do it, is would the administration use such a method and would the governor adopt it as official policy? We understand that the eviction policy is certainly not merely a social and economic planning problem but also a political one. However, we might give the governor the benefit of the doubt that he has the best interests of the city at heart.

Jakarta, as a beautified city, would create a positive impression with foreigners, while for other Indonesian cities, it should also be an example of how development in a city should be managed. But Jakarta, of course, is a city for all: Both the wealthy educated and the poor uneducated; both Betawi and non- Betawi people; those born in Jakarta and those born elsewhere. We would be out of our minds if Jakarta were managed with only the wealthy under consideration.

To be able to reach a possible alternative solution, common ground must be established. We might be in agreement that Jakarta as a clean, beautiful and livable city is a good idea. It would represent a civilized city as it should be, ideally, both modern and prosperous.

On the other hand, we might also be in agreement that the Indonesian government has a mandate to guarantee a decent level of social and economic welfare for all its citizens. This is clearly stated in the Constitution. The poor, who are about to be evicted, may or may not be citizens of Jakarta, but they are certainly Indonesian citizens. At this point, we have to view the problem of urban poverty in Jakarta as not merely a Jakarta problem but a national one.

If we accept this as common ground for our discussion, we may establish a corridor for seeking an alternative policy. The means aimed at making Jakarta a clean, beautiful and civilized city should be justifiable. We should avoid the tendency to let the ends justify the means because that can easily result in human rights violations, as such a program has done traditionally in the past. Therefore, the creation of a civilized city should also entail civilized means.

But how can we measure civilized means? They could be measured by the extent to which they protect, promote or recognize the interests of the most vulnerable groups of our citizens: the poor, the elderly, children, orphans, women and the disabled.

Let's ask ourselves a question: Has the eviction policy, thus far, protected, promoted or acknowledged the interests of the most vulnerable group of citizens? The target of evictions is the poorest members of the urban community. One means of evaluating this policy is to examine the three stages of eviction policy implementation.

First, at the pre-eviction planning stage, we may evaluate whether the Jakarta administration recognizes, encourages or includes the participation of the target population. This is a most crucial process in establishing the method of eviction, disseminating the actions that are planned and negotiating in the interests of the relevant parties. Furthermore, does the process include third parties i.e., NGOs or different government representatives? The presence of third parties in the development and planning stages is an important indicator of participation.

Second, during the process of eviction, we may evaluate the extent to which administration officials treat those who are evicted as respected human beings. It can be seen, for example, whether or not evictees understand why they must leave their homes, whether or not the evictees are given a reasonable time to prepare, and whether or not the administration provides adequate support to maintain their quality of life during and after displacement.

After eviction we can also evaluate how the process has affected targeted population living standards and income levels. There is concern that if they are returned to their province of origin they may face more serious risks of impoverishment. The risks can be identified as eight subprocesses: landlessness, joblessness, homelessness, marginalization, increased morbidity, food insecurity, loss of access to common property and social disarticulation. The evictee resettlement program should always consider these issues and attempt to avoid further social and economic hardship.

If the administration's eviction policy and practice were participatory, treated the evictees respectfully and guaranteed the welfare of the evictees, then we could accept it as a civilized approach. However, if the process is to the contrary, then we would be wise to seek other alternatives.

A civilized eviction approach requires systematic planning. The eviction policy and program should be socially responsible and economically justifiable. Administration planners should be able to anticipate those possible consequences of eviction and resettlement programs that increase the risk of impoverishment.

A civilized approach to eviction would also attempt to avoid victimizing the targets. Poor urban communities result largely from the uncivilized (read: inequitable) economic development programs of the past. Most poor migrants moved to Jakarta, not because they wanted to stay and become squatters, but were forced to because of the lack of adequate economic resources at their places of origin. The problems of the city of Jakarta, therefore, are not the poor but poverty itself and the unjust economic distribution system.

It is clear from the prevalence of the poor in Jakarta that the issues are not limited to the city administration but also exist at a national level. The central government and other related provincial governments should also be involved in the eviction process, as it is related to wider issues of national development. A civilized approach to eviction in Jakarta, hopefully, will not only result in the creation of a civilized city but also the creation of a civilized Indonesia.

Such an approach, therefore, regards human beings -- vulnerable people -- as the top priority. It would be meaningless if the city of Jakarta were built upon the tears of the poor and of vulnerable citizens. The willingness of the city administration to recognize, support and protect the interests of its most vulnerable citizens would initiate a larger transformation of social and economic development policy at a national level.