Political groups need to communicate more often

Political groups need to communicate more often

A recent seminar on human resources held by four religious
intellectual associations sought to disprove that their high
profile activities are fostering sectarian politics. Political
scientist Amir Santoso stresses the need for more frequent
inter-group communication to purge such suspicions.

JAKARTA (JP): As I see it, this is the right time to discuss
in greater earnest the problem of inter-group relationships in
this country.

The reason is that since the birth of the Indonesian
Association of Moslem Intellectuals (ICMI) a couple of years ago,
I have sensed the rise of certain feelings of suspicion among
groups, particularly among nationalists and non-nationalists. I
am afraid that unless immediate steps are taken to surmount this
climate of mutual distrust the consequences could be truly
injurious to this nation.

If I may be honest, this mutual distrust stems perhaps from
the political rivalry that exists among groups and which has been
coming more and more into the open in the past few years. In the
early years of the New Order, intergroup rivalries did not come
to the fore so much because, at that time, this nation was busy
consolidating itself. At the same time, Indonesians were
preoccupied with the problem of development in the wake of the
failed Communist coup d'etat of 1965.

Now that the consolidation process has been completed and the
development programs successfully implemented, however, there is
time for each of the existing groups to become aware of its
position in this country's arena of political competition.

When ICMI was established, the feeling might have spread among
non-Moslems that it was a sign of the awakening of Islam and they
began to worry about the possibility of the emergence of an
Islamic state. If Indonesia were dominated by Moslems, they
suspect, there would be no place for them in this country. They
would become minority groups, which must be ready to be dominated
by the Moslems. Thus some established their own organizations,
while others like PIKI (Protestant) and ISKA (Catholic) had
already existed some years before the birth of ICMI.

I think the same feeling towards the Moslems is also harbored
by the nationalists. The majority of them are Moslems, but they
are categorized as what the anthropologist Clifford Geertz
referred to as abangan (nominal) Moslems. Their opinions, their
interests and their objectives are different from those of the
fundamentalist Moslems (the santri). A certain part of the
nationalists were supporters of the late president Sukarno during
the Old Order period and became the losers when Sukarno lost his
power. Some Moslem activists believe that the nationalists now
want to revive their involvement in politics after having bided
their time for years in the wings.

Among the Moslems themselves, perhaps, the feeling has spread
that for the past 20 years they have been treated unjustly with
regard to the distribution of political resources. In their view,
the non-Moslem minority groups in the past dominated the larger
part of the political resources, while the Moslems, who formed
the majority, controlled only a small part.

The emergence of ICMI, then, could be seen as an expression of
the need of Moslem intellectuals to organize themselves, as they
are aware that without an organization they will always be weak.
As I know from various sources, the main objective of this
organization is not to discriminate against non-Moslems but
rather to improve the social and economic position of Moslems.

Suspicion of ICMI in particular and of Moslems in general has
surfaced, however, because a number of ICMI activists were
appointed to key positions in government. This has been
interpreted by other groups as a systematic effort to dominate
the political arena. In ICMI's view, however, such appointments
are something common because, as citizens, they have the right to
hold government posts.

As a nation in the process of learning to compete in a
democratic manner, we have first of all to learn to understand
that any group whatsoever has its own interests and that each
group will try to realize those interests. Most importantly, each
group must learn to compete fairly and with a high degree of
sportsmanship.

Secondly, each group must learn to accept the existence of
other groups. This requires the sustenance of political
communication among groups. All the suspicions that have emerged
so far are for the most part due to the absence of contacts
between the various groups. At present, inter-group meetings are
seldom held. Gatherings are held exclusively within
organizations.

Efforts must be made to increase inter-group encounters and to
allow them to hold free and open dialogs. In this way suspicions
can be reduced. Joint seminars such as the one held collectively
a couple of months ago by PIKI, ICMI and by the Buddhist (KCBI)
and Hindu (FCHI) organizations of intellectuals are part of an
effort that should be continued.

Thirdly and most importantly in my view is the need to nurture
an awareness of the fact that modern Indonesia cannot be built by
one group alone. It must be built through cooperation among all
groups. For that reason the majority groups should not become
arrogant, the minority groups should not strive to control an
excessive amount of the available resources and thereby invite
reactions from the majority, and no group must consider itself
more nationalistic than the others.

The writer is a lecturer of political science at the
University of Indonesia.