Creating (dis)comfort in Indonesia

Sulaiman Tripa, Student, The School of Law, Syiah Kuala University, Banda Aceh

This big country is plagued by conflicts, which in this context are no longer natural.

Differences, which in Islamic terminology turn into a blessing, have now served as a means to point arms at one another. In the beginning of this new century -- as a sequel to the one producing absurd men -- Indonesia is characterized by bloody action. When will all this be over? Or will we still be experiencing greater discomfort?

Several writers traveling abroad, particularly after the World Trade Center and Pentagon tragedy on Sept. 11, 2001, could hear unfamiliar names for Indonesians, like looters, robbers and rapists.

The terminology obviously alludes to the incident of rape in May 1998, the rioting throughout 1999 and the political tragedy of July 27, 1997.

In the United States, the stigma is even worse. Especially when the U.S. was about to invade Afghanistan, the strongest opposition reportedly came from Indonesia with large-scale demonstrations conducted by Islamic groups during November and December 2001.

So the conflicts keep going. Some have surfaced while others are dormant. Some remain deep rooted and still others are over. Besides the conflicts in Indonesia, antagonism prevails in the global political constellation as well. The Indonesian government's official stance toward the issue of terrorism and several international conflicts is particularly relevant, which in reality affects internal clashes.

Certain of Indonesia's conflict settlement policies are noticeably more meant to please the countries on which the nation's living needs and armaments depend, instead of seeking a thorough solution.

It is therefore only proper that the conflicts persist and fail to proceed naturally. They become something terrifying as the unhealthy and unnatural frictions have left behind the murky side of humanity and lingering thoughts.

People often take the conditions for granted because diversity indeed characterizes this country. But with the diverse elements being reduced to uniformity, they have revolted. So conflicts tainted with violence have emerged as part of the diversity that previously failed to manifest. The uniformity was also reflected in the armed approach as the only way of problem solution.

With the collapse of the New Order -- the regime imposing the uniform policy -- on May 21, 1998, history finally made people aware that they were different rather than uniform. Based on historical, philosophical and sociological facts, this state actually has existed due to its diversity.

The physical features of the country are easiest to detect, with its 13,699 islands covering a total area of no less than two million square kilometers and a population of more than 210 million.

This population, the world's fifth largest after China, the U.S., Russia and India, has various languages and 495 ethnic groups, besides at least five religions along with dozens or perhaps hundreds of mystical sects (Kompas, December 20, 2000).

Nonetheless, does the fall of the regime of uniformity ensure the attainment of comfort in the country? It is just the topical subject. The Indonesian public remains haunted by the trauma of the July 27 and May 1998 riots and the tragedies of the Semanggi and Trisakti student shootings, which in certain cases have grown into the initial stage of a new discomfort for society.

On May 21, 1998, smoldering forces earlier hidden began to rise, some with identities and others in the name of entities. There were those emerging out of oppression, in terms of economy, politics and even humanity, as well as cultural marginalization. Post-reform conflicts have now really demonstrated unsound and artificial phenomena.

Such forces virtually spread across the nation. Cases in Aceh, Tanjung Priok, Kalimantan, Sulawesi, Papua and East Timor are facts of deep resentment of long standing. Fresh incidents are appearing before complete settlement of these cases, thus demanding a lot more time, energy and mental effort.

Inter-regional conflicts have broken out since the enforcement of Law No.22/1999 on regional autonomy and Law No.25/1999 on financial equilibrium. Some regional administrations even turn up between regions in the same territory.

Conflicts between ethnic groups, religious communities, and between indigenous people and resettlers are still around. Meanwhile, student and neighborhood brawls are now a common sight.

Ironically, the conflicts are rife at the political elite level. At this level, such clashes are liable to include their political supporters and party followers. Intellectual actors come out in other forms. This in fact represents the inability of the state and its elite to detect the different kinds of apprehension in society.

Our authorities are very reluctant to claim that they are 'no longer capable of executing their missions'. This incompetence is manifested by their search for the so-called 'intellectual actors' and scapegoats.

In the political and social conflicts and cases of disintegration in several regions, the government has only one idea in every move: Arms. The government often thinks that arms will solve the strife in restive areas. Wasn't it arms that made the Tanjung Priok issue so widely remonstrated, and East Timor so bloody and devastated?

There seems to be the unawareness that the role of incompetence will lead to a catastrophe. It is even more the case if one considers Jakarta the most accurate guide to settle all matters.

This pattern must be changed. The elite's struggle particularly for power must be straightened out. Whether or not realized, it has become the second factor -- the first being the power policy error -- that causes the blood-bath conflicts in the country. In other words, the elite are responsible for the discomfort in society.

It is indeed very difficult to change the paradigm in Indonesia, whose elite have been in the grip of a mistaken pattern of power for almost half a century. At least their way of thinking can no longer be put to right.

This is the toughest challenge ahead. However demanding the task may be, it must be carried out. Don't we wish to bring about comfort in our lives without producing absurd men in this century of human rights? Otherwise, future history will be the same as bygone facts.