Identity crisis, injustice spark demand for federal state

The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

The identity crisis currently being experienced by Indonesians has brought about a host of demands, such as a change from a unitary state to a federal state or a state based on a specific ethnicity or religion, says one scholar.

"Am I an Indonesian or a Javanese?" noted political analyst Soedjati Djiwandono quipped in a discussion here on Friday, "Perhaps I am a Javanese above all else."

Soedjati gave the Americans as an example of a peoples who are proud of their country.

"What is there to be proud of being an Indonesian anyway?" he asked, adding that the name conjured up an image of injustice and violence.

California is a very strong state and yet it does not want to secede from the federal government of the United States, he said.

"A federal or unitary state is not the issue. A well-functioning federal state will not cause a state to secede," he said, comparing California with Chechnya, which was attacked by the Russian government when it wanted to secede.

Separatist groups are fighting for independence in Indonesia, such as those in Aceh and Papua, as demand for the implementation of Islamic law or secession attempts based on ethnic affinity is intensifying.

The core issue is justice, Soedjati said, adding that both a unitary state system and a federal state system would be able to contain separatist urges as long as the system ran well.

"The erstwhile demand for a federal state, or for a state based on a certain ethnicity or religion is a manifestation of a demand for justice," Soedjati said in the discussion on conflict and the future of the unitary state organized by the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI).

Earlier, he expressed remorse at the official catch phrase "united and unitary" state of Indonesia.

"I don't have any problem with 'united' which refers to nation but 'unitary' denotes uniformity," he said, associating it to a fondness for uniformity not unlike the uniform of the military.

"This is a most stupid phrase," he said.

Soedjati said he found discussions on a federal and unitary state outdated.

"Rather than fighting over whether the state should be based on a united or a federal system, it would be better to address the present crisis," he said, "because current ethnic and religious unrest has reached such a dangerous level."

Thamrin Amal Tomagola, a sociologist from the University of Indonesia, shared Soedjati's view, saying that it would be immature to talk about federalism knowing that those who wield power in the provinces are the same people as during Soeharto's New Order government.

"We asked Soeharto to step down but we put 'Little Soehartos' on the throne in the provinces," said Thamrin, who is also a staff member at the Ministry of Research and Technology.

Thamrin figured that would take at least two generations before the time was ripe to talk about federalism.

"Not until those in power fade out completely," he said.

Thamrin also agreed with Soedjati that injustice was the core behind demands to secede.

"The Armed Forces is quick to spot that the separatism issue is good for it since it brings it to the forefront (of the political stage)," he said.

Injustice, he said, stemmed from the "systematic disempowerment" of a certain community group in society.

"This explains the chaos in Maluku, Kalimantan, Aceh and Papua," he said.

Systemic disempowerment, he said, marginalized a certain ethnic or religious group and worked as a time bomb.

It is understood that one of the reasons behind the Maluku conflict was the massive substitution of traditionally Christian civil servants by Muslims in the early 1990s.

Muslims make up most of the population in Indonesia but in certain eastern islands Christians comprise half or more of the population.

LIPI director Taufik Abdullah cited three characteristics of the Soeharto government at the opening of the discussion.

One is the total dependency of the provincial government toward the central government; two, the co-optation of civil society by the Soeharto regime.

"As long as Soeharto remained powerful, there was no problem," he said.

Three, overly strong bureaucratic leadership, he said.

"But once this wavers, we won't have any government," Taufik said.

He attributed the various conflicts in the regions to a loss of the self-defense mechanism of the people.