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.