Creating (dis)comfort in Indonesia

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.