Effective leaders needed to manage social conflict

By Aleksius Jemadu

BANDUNG (JP): Many would agree that the greatest challenge that Indonesia will have to face in the coming century is how to create a modern nation-state based on a strong and democratic civil society capable of competing with other nations in the global market.

However, national unity in a pluralistic society can never be taken for granted. Nor can it be assumed as a static condition. Managing conflict is a permanent necessity to ensure the survivability of a nation-state.

We must honestly admit that conflict is an inevitable element of our social life. Fundamental differences do exist among different ethnic groups, religions, cultures, languages, and social strata of Indonesian society. The differences, however, may not necessarily mean that we cannot build a strong nation- state.

Economic development as a mechanism to allocate authoritative values in society very rarely provides equal opportunities for members of society. Some groups in society might benefit more than others in appropriating the fruits of economic development. Some other groups might even be marginalized in the process of economic development. Unequal distribution of economic resources will inevitably lead to the crystallization of the existing innate divisive conflicts. This is precisely the reason why people tend to put it down to social and economic inequality when asked about the cause of the recent riots.

The main argument of this article suggests that our political leaders should learn how to manage conflict in a pluralistic society such as ours so that the conflict might be controlled and transformed into a creative dialectics towards the establishment of a strong nation-state.

How can we define the concept of "conflict management" in such a way so that it might fit the typical situation of our society?

Conflict management can be understood as a process of reconciling crucial differences among the protagonists so that they might be willing to maintain their togetherness and committed to enhance cooperation to achieve common benefits.

It goes without saying that the role of the government is very critical in providing an effective leadership which is capable of accommodating and harmonizing the conflicting interests promoted by different segments in society.

What does it mean to have an effective leadership? Effective leadership can be said to exist when a leader has a strong legitimacy, formal and substantial, and his policies can be accepted by all groups in society. An effective leader puts public interests above his or her own strategic calculations and political ambitions.

Without an effective leadership, a nation would appear to be going nowhere. Conversely, the presence of an effective leadership can produce significant achievements in many important aspects of national development.

It should be noted that an effective leadership cannot be likened to an authoritarian one. While the first type of leadership can invite respect from the people, the latter can continue to exist because the people feel powerless to resist.

Whether a nation can create an effective leadership depends greatly on the existing political culture which dominates political life. By political culture we mean patterns of political behavior and ideological orientations which tend to persist over time.

Conflict management in a pluralistic society such as Indonesia requires the presence of an effective leader. The fact that the New Order government has managed to combine good economic performance and political stability over the last three decades should be seen as proof of an effective leadership. However, what is the foundation to believe that this type of political leadership will be sustainable? Can the young generation within the national leadership develop a capability to cope with new demands and challenges from within and outside the nation?

We cannot expect that political stability should always be imposed from above. The empowerment of our civil society is an important agenda to be worked out as we enter the next millennium.

The strength of a modern nation-state reflects the empowerment of its civil society. It is believed that the recent spate of riots in several places has been due to the fact that the government is too strong and seems to be inaccessible for the grassroots. There seems to be a wide gap between the jargons used by government officials and the real social and economic conditions of many of us. As a result, people from the lower strata tend to find solutions to their problems within the framework of their respective innate divisive loyalties. They tend to hate all the political and economic symbols of the dominant power.

Political stability has become the main goal of conflict management in many developing societies, including Indonesia. However, the promotion of political stability is unthinkable without the participation of all groups in society. It is a common practice in many developing countries that the people tend to become objects of manipulation for the sake of political stability.

It should not come as a surprise if some people get worried about stability because one person's stability can be another's repression. A dynamic stability always implies change toward a better society. Political stability without change is equal to political stagnation. The desire to have a better life is very human in any society. Political stability is not an end in itself but an instrument to achieve social and economic progress for all.

There are several conditions that need to be seriously considered if we want to develop an ability to manage conflict in our pluralistic society. First of all, we have to change the way we deal with the problem of social and economic inequality.

Without underestimating the real efforts made by the government in alleviating poverty in rural and urban areas, we would argue that it would be much more effective if we take the risk of changing some structural characteristics of national development.

Problems of poverty and economic inequality are structurally embedded in our development approach. People might ask why poverty tends to persist and even increase both in urban and rural areas as our economy grows steadily?

There is no easy answer to such a complicated and disturbing question. To be sure, it is not easy to satisfy everybody. However, the government can give more opportunities to the weak economic groups by facilitating and simplifying the process of getting soft loans and credit from state banks.

We cannot alleviate poverty by capitalizing on the benevolence of the conglomerates. It will be more elegant if we find ways how to prevent the conglomerates from appropriating most of economic resources. It is the task of the state to create justice in society by allocating authoritative values in a more equal and accountable way. Thus, just and fair allocation of economic resources can be used as an instrument to manage conflict because it touches the basic needs of the people.

Second, the government should be consistent in its effort to eradicate corruption within the whole public sector system. Good examples from political leaders are absolutely necessary. Respect for superiors is a strong passion among our bureaucrats. A corrupt leader cannot be expected to have sufficient moral power and courage to prevent his subordinates from corruption. This is why corruption has become a pervasive phenomenon so difficult to get rid of.

If the common people feel powerless in facing a lot of irregularities and infractions, they will become frustrated and tend to commit violent acts once there is an opportunity to do so. Thus, ethical improvement within government bureaucracies becomes an important element of strengthening the idea of a modern and democratic nation-state. Only a clean government can exercise an effective leadership in managing conflicting interests in society.

Third, the principle of equality before the law should be practiced by all. There are two senses of this principle. It might apply to the rules themselves and it can also refer to the actual practices of legal administrators. Where the executive power tends to dominate the judicial power, it is very likely that the formal law might be just, but the judges might be corrupt.

Rule adjudication could then be characterized by the preservation of the dominant political group's interests in society. As a result, the principle of rule of law becomes "rule of bureaucratic law". "Rules of the game" becomes "game of rules" because the ruling power can manipulate the existing rules for its own benefits.

The absence of legal certainty could lead to the accumulation of social frustrations at the grassroots level because they feel powerless to make their voice heard by the ruling elite. This is precisely the reason why government officials should undertake sincere dialog with the people. Dialog can be an effective instrument to soften hard elements of social envy and ethnic hostility.

Finally, the proper function of democratic institutions such as parliament, political parties, trade unions, mass organizations, voluntary organizations and the mass media can be very helpful in managing conflict in pluralistic society.

These institutions should be freed from bureaucratic intervention. If they cannot demonstrate their independence in articulating the interests of their constituents, what else can we hope from them?

The writer is a lecturer in the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences at the Catholic University of Parahyangan, Bandung. He obtained his Ph.D. in social sciences from KU Leuwen, Belgium.

Window A: It is believed that the recent spate of riots in several places has been due to the fact that the government is too strong and seems to be inaccessible for the grassroots.

Window B: It should not come as a surprise if some people get worried about stability because one person's stability can be another's repression.