Mass violence and the problem of managing pluralities

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?