Mass violence and the problem of managing pluralities

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): Each eruption of mass violence across the country signals the government's inability to contain such violence, raising fears of disintegration. If both the national and local administrations fail to stop mass violence and restore order, what will be left?

Chaos, anarchy and the emergence of local warlords! The country could be subdivided into local "entities" -- to use Moynihan's term -- that are neither "states" nor "governments".

I do not share this pessimistic view. Not every recent incident of mass violence has been caused by a collective desire for a sovereign state. Often the causes are our failure in managing our pluralities -- which are basically ethnic, religious and cultural -- and the social and economic gap.

Ethnic and religious pluralities have been the main causes of many incidents of mass violence since 1995. The recent violence in Pontianak, West Kalimantan, was ethnic-based, while the violence in North Maluku, Ambon, and Poso, Central Sulawesi, involved followers of different religions.

Anyone or any group of people living in a pluralistic environment have two options, i.e. either to accept the differences inherent in every pluralistic environment, or to reject these pluralities.

If a community or society can accept the differences arising from plurality, then it will do its utmost to "tame" the initial prejudices that come with plurality and build a peaceful and collaborative society. No party will resort to violence to solve problems that may come from that plurality.

On the other hand, a society that cannot accept these differences will do everything possible to erase these differences and impose homogeneity based on the preference of one party.

Such communities will in the end be fragmented into smaller groups that hate each other, and will end up fighting each other indefinitely. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which split up into Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia, is just one case in point.

The difference between the beneficial and harmful management of pluralities lies in how a society treats the inherent prejudices.

In a society which aims to create a peaceful and collaborative coexistence, prejudices are first turned into mutual tolerance through the promotion of better mutual understanding.

This mutual tolerance is next used as the basis for creating mutual acceptance and mutual inclusion. In societies with a higher degree of civility the process does not stop here. Mutual inclusion would further be promoted into "mutualities", i.e. the social capability to embrace differences, to find "beauty" in differences and ultimately to find enjoyment in living in those differences.

This is what has happened in Britain among British Muslims who are the descendants of immigrants from the former British India. This is a long process, requiring the participation of a significant number of people at each step.

In societies where psychological forces emanating from those initial prejudices are unbridled, dislike, hatred and social anger will develop.

Some community leaders can then manipulate the situation to force other groups to give up their identity and aspirations in exchange for theirs. The result: tension and the loss of lives.

A society which cannot resolve psychological conflicts emanating from initial prejudices will never become creative. It is impossible for anyone or any group to lead a creative existence if one is constantly preoccupied with the desire to dominate others, or feels threatened by violence.

Most countries today have multicultural populations, meaning people with different backgrounds, be it ethnic, religious, cultural or any other distinction.

Even some Nordic countries, which for centuries were predominantly white, are now gradually becoming multicultural.

I was very surprised when in 1986 I saw a black Swede working as a public servant in a government institution. The presence of black or other "nonindigenous" players on a number of European soccer teams is another indication of this changing situation.

No country is perfectly capable of solving problems related to pluralities. Australia is still troubled with its Aborigines. In the United States, after African-Americans achieved significant victories in their battle against racism, there is still the problem of Chicanos and native Americans.

In Canada, the problem of native Americans is still unsolved. The International Herald Tribune reported on Nov. 3 that some 16,000 native Americans were to submit "some form of claim" demanding compensation for the sexual and cultural abuses they suffered during their years in boarding schools, which they were forced to attend.

In Germany, the political headache for the government and society stems from the issue of permanent "guest workers".

This is because certain German politicians have insisted that the German culture should be accepted as the "defining culture" (Leitkultur) among the immigrants; and in their daily interactions with native Germans the "otherness" of these immigrants has always been emphasized by extreme right politicians.

Yet, in spite of all those shortcomings we have not seen violence in these countries on a scale even remotely close to the tragedies in Indonesia.

Even in Germany, where "patriotic" skinheads sometimes commit acts of violence against Turks and Jews, the number of people killed or tortured has been infinitesimal compared to Indonesia.

So, what is wrong with Indonesia and how can we get out of this torturous condition? There was a time when people of different ethnic origins, faiths, traditions and habits used to live together in peace here.

It is impossible to prescribe a general formula or develop a model of harmony in a short time.

But there is one promising model -- that of Sofyan Tan in Medan. A medical doctor turned educator, he initiated and developed a model for a mixed school (sekolah pembauran).

The school has "native" children, Chinese-Indonesian children and children from poor families, all educated in an environment striving to stimulate genuine integration.

In his book Education of the Heart, he outlines his strategy. Part of this is to build a mosque, a church and a Buddhist temple on one plot of land.

This aims to stimulate interreligious understanding and tolerance among students of different ethnic, religious and cultural backgrounds.

This may look like just a drop of water on a raging grass fire -- which, sadly, it could prove to be unless other community leaders follow suit with thousands of buckets of water, by replacing their fiery sermons with constructive steps to build harmony.

Replacing the present culture of mass violence with a culture of tolerance and collaboration is virtually a national assignment to transform society. Admittedly this will be a long and painful process, requiring patience, perseverance and a willingness to sacrifice.

This is the psychological price that we will have to pay.

Are we able and willing to pay this price?