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.