Exploring the causes of the national unity crisis

Exploring the causes of the national unity crisis

By Elwin Tobing

BOSTON, United States (JP): Today we are living in a rapidly
changing world. Revolution is not only taking place in the
business world through the creation of computers and their
apparatus, but also in every aspect of our lives. In the early
1990s, no one was able to foresee the end of the New Order regime
and the independence of East Timor. Everything changes so swiftly
and unpredictably that it often catches us unprepared to
anticipate the consequences.

The diverse and rather panicky reactions to the demand for
independence in Aceh indicate our unreadiness in anticipating the
consequences of the reform measures we are actively promoting. We
were preoccupied by our efforts to improve the national economy
and reinvent the government until we were shaken by the event in
Aceh.

It is widely regarded that the current unity crisis is driven
by the heterogeneity of our country's ethnic, religious and
racial diversity. This is supported by John Galtung in his book
True World: A Transnational Perspective (1980). Galtung, a
preeminent humanist, identifies three main causes of secessionist
movements. First, a relation of dominance, establishing dominator
and dominated. Second, a high correlation between the dominator-
dominated dimension and geographical location. Third, a high
correlation between the dominator-dominated dimension and
ethnical or religious factors.

Galtung's thesis applies to the recent movement in the Balkans
where the dominated Kosovar and Bosnian ethnic groups fought for
their independence. The vacuum of absolute domination by a
certain ethnic or religious group in our country, however,
compels us to seek more reasonable factors.

One of the fundamental causes is the unequal relationship
between central and regional governments which developed during
the New Order era. During the era, regional governments were
basically treated as subordinates, not partners, by the central
government in managing regional development. Central planners in
Jakarta designed and implemented the blueprints of development,
sidelining local and regional governments as secondary actors and
in some cases just spectators.

Often, their inadequate understanding of local conditions
resulted in controversial policies like the operation of the Inti
Rayon pulp factory in Porsea, North Sumatra. Local people
rejected the factory, but the central government stubbornly
ignored their protests until finally it was shut down when
Jakarta was no longer able to control the situation.

To make matters worse, regional leaders that were generally
appointed by Jakarta, also lacked an understanding of local
issues. In addition, their main priority was to serve central
officials who were frequently treated like a king.

Another major cause is a fundamental misconception that
occurred in our economic development strategy. The central
planners were too smart to ignore the reality that strong
regional economies are the key to successful national
development, not the other way around. Not only did it create
serious regional disparities, the situation also caused some
regions to be left behind, compared to the nation as a whole.

According to data released by the Central Bureau of Statistics
in 1998, the average per capita income of 19 provinces was Rp
1.48 million (roughly US$200 at the current exchange rate of Rp
7,000 to the dollar), much lower compared to the national per
capita income of Rp 2.17 million. Per capita income in Jakarta
was 10-fold that of Eastern Nusa Tenggara and nine-fold that of
Southeast Sulawesi.

During the 1967-1998 period, total approved domestic
investment in five provinces was Rp 12 trillion, much less
compared to that of West Java, which received Rp 195 trillion.
Foreign investment approvals in eight provinces were only $2,6
billion, while in the same period West Java secured $64 billion.

Regional indicators of human basic needs such as access to
health services, better education, clean water and sanitation are
even more dismal. In eight provinces, the ratio of students to
teachers at the elementary level was still much higher compared
to the national average of 23 students per teacher. Population
per public health center in eight provinces was 360; a figure
which is too high compared to the national average of 274.

About 34 percent of households in 17 provinces do not have
access to sanitation, while the national average is 24 percent.
On average, 30 percent of households in 12 provinces do not have
access to clean water, a figure which is too high compared to the
national average of 12 percent.

The disparities are further aggravated by capital drainage
from local economies. Regional investment projects, mostly owned
by foreign and central investors from rich provinces such as
Jakarta and West Java, not only failed to boost the income of
local people, but also pushed the capital outflows from the
peripheries to the center.

As a result, capital outflows from local economies are much
greater than the capital inflows. In addition, central or foreign
companies acquire most projects, leaving local companies with the
marginal projects.

Unity based on mutually beneficial and equal cooperation
between regional and center governments is more stable than
superficial unity imposed by force. Consequently, there is no
other alternative except to decentralize our economic and
political policies, and to change the nature of the relationship
between central and regional governments from subordination to
partnership. This can be achieved without transforming the unity
of our nation to one based on federalism.

The great philosopher Bertrand Russell once remarked,
"understanding the problem is the first step to overcoming it".
Without understanding the fundamental causes of the present
crisis, it is impossible to formulate and implement an accurate
policy aimed at keeping our nation together as one.

The writer is studying for his doctorate degree in economics,
at Boston College in the United States.