More civilized approach needed for evictions

More civilized approach needed for evictions

Sirojudin Abbas, Lecturer, State Islamic University
(UIN), Jakarta, sirojudinabbas@yahoo.ca

The Jakarta administration is about to restart the highly
controversial eviction program for illegal settlers in Jakarta
and street vendors at the end of January 2004. Like those evicted
earlier in 2003, those due for eviction in 2004 will face further
risks of impoverishment.

The Urban Poor Consortium (UPC) estimates about 8,500 families
(47,500 people) will become homeless. But Jakarta Governor
Sutiyoso believes that eviction is the most humane way for the
administration to deal with poor squatters in the capital city.

Various sections of society have expressed strong opposition
to this program. The UPC has consistently challenged the
implementation of this policy, while, national and even
international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have also
voiced concern. At the end of 2003, the Center for Housing Rights
and Eviction (COHRE) sent a letter of protest to president
Megawati. This international NGO, moreover, classified Indonesia
as the nation with the greatest violations in the world against
housing rights.

However, this criticism remains ineffectual. Unless there are
other, more humane ways to clean up the streets of Jakarta, the
governor asserts, the administration will continue with this
program. The question, then, if there were another way to do it,
is would the administration use such a method and would the
governor adopt it as official policy? We understand that the
eviction policy is certainly not merely a social and economic
planning problem but also a political one. However, we might give
the governor the benefit of the doubt that he has the best
interests of the city at heart.

Jakarta, as a beautified city, would create a positive
impression with foreigners, while for other Indonesian cities, it
should also be an example of how development in a city should be
managed. But Jakarta, of course, is a city for all: Both the
wealthy educated and the poor uneducated; both Betawi and non-
Betawi people; those born in Jakarta and those born elsewhere. We
would be out of our minds if Jakarta were managed with only the
wealthy under consideration.

To be able to reach a possible alternative solution, common
ground must be established. We might be in agreement that Jakarta
as a clean, beautiful and livable city is a good idea. It would
represent a civilized city as it should be, ideally, both modern
and prosperous.

On the other hand, we might also be in agreement that the
Indonesian government has a mandate to guarantee a decent level
of social and economic welfare for all its citizens. This is
clearly stated in the Constitution. The poor, who are about to be
evicted, may or may not be citizens of Jakarta, but they are
certainly Indonesian citizens. At this point, we have to view the
problem of urban poverty in Jakarta as not merely a Jakarta
problem but a national one.

If we accept this as common ground for our discussion, we may
establish a corridor for seeking an alternative policy. The means
aimed at making Jakarta a clean, beautiful and civilized city
should be justifiable. We should avoid the tendency to let the
ends justify the means because that can easily result in human
rights violations, as such a program has done traditionally in
the past. Therefore, the creation of a civilized city should also
entail civilized means.

But how can we measure civilized means? They could be measured
by the extent to which they protect, promote or recognize the
interests of the most vulnerable groups of our citizens: the
poor, the elderly, children, orphans, women and the disabled.

Let's ask ourselves a question: Has the eviction policy, thus
far, protected, promoted or acknowledged the interests of the
most vulnerable group of citizens? The target of evictions is the
poorest members of the urban community. One means of evaluating
this policy is to examine the three stages of eviction policy
implementation.

First, at the pre-eviction planning stage, we may evaluate
whether the Jakarta administration recognizes, encourages or
includes the participation of the target population. This is a
most crucial process in establishing the method of eviction,
disseminating the actions that are planned and negotiating in the
interests of the relevant parties. Furthermore, does the process
include third parties i.e., NGOs or different government
representatives? The presence of third parties in the development
and planning stages is an important indicator of participation.

Second, during the process of eviction, we may evaluate the
extent to which administration officials treat those who are
evicted as respected human beings. It can be seen, for example,
whether or not evictees understand why they must leave their
homes, whether or not the evictees are given a reasonable time to
prepare, and whether or not the administration provides adequate
support to maintain their quality of life during and after
displacement.

After eviction we can also evaluate how the process has
affected targeted population living standards and income levels.
There is concern that if they are returned to their province of
origin they may face more serious risks of impoverishment. The
risks can be identified as eight subprocesses: landlessness,
joblessness, homelessness, marginalization, increased morbidity,
food insecurity, loss of access to common property and social
disarticulation. The evictee resettlement program should always
consider these issues and attempt to avoid further social and
economic hardship.

If the administration's eviction policy and practice were
participatory, treated the evictees respectfully and guaranteed
the welfare of the evictees, then we could accept it as a
civilized approach. However, if the process is to the contrary,
then we would be wise to seek other alternatives.

A civilized eviction approach requires systematic planning.
The eviction policy and program should be socially responsible
and economically justifiable. Administration planners should be
able to anticipate those possible consequences of eviction and
resettlement programs that increase the risk of impoverishment.

A civilized approach to eviction would also attempt to avoid
victimizing the targets. Poor urban communities result largely
from the uncivilized (read: inequitable) economic development
programs of the past. Most poor migrants moved to Jakarta, not
because they wanted to stay and become squatters, but were forced
to because of the lack of adequate economic resources at their
places of origin. The problems of the city of Jakarta, therefore,
are not the poor but poverty itself and the unjust economic
distribution system.

It is clear from the prevalence of the poor in Jakarta that
the issues are not limited to the city administration but also
exist at a national level. The central government and other
related provincial governments should also be involved in the
eviction process, as it is related to wider issues of national
development. A civilized approach to eviction in Jakarta,
hopefully, will not only result in the creation of a civilized
city but also the creation of a civilized Indonesia.

Such an approach, therefore, regards human beings --
vulnerable people -- as the top priority. It would be meaningless
if the city of Jakarta were built upon the tears of the poor and
of vulnerable citizens. The willingness of the city
administration to recognize, support and protect the interests of
its most vulnerable citizens would initiate a larger
transformation of social and economic development policy at a
national level.