Preventing turmoil

Preventing turmoil

President Soeharto warned the nation of the dangers of turmoil in his New Year's Eve speech. He said experience shows that every complex society has various vulnerable points. "If we do not handle them in a good way it could create turmoil," he said.

The President pointed out that from time to time, including in 1995, localized turmoil has been felt in our nation. While he did not elaborate, many people share his opinion about the possibility of trouble looming this year. Many believe that this year will be a difficult period politically. This is not because the nation is preparing for next 1997's general election but because the people have become more sensitive in many domains.

Last year saw the establishment of many new social organizations, but no room for them in the existing political infrastructure. Some of the new organizations were born out of old political groupings which used to function under nationalistic and religious fiat. What could this mean? Do they want to have a role in the current political system because they have a sense of responsibility for the future of the nation? The rhetoric might vary from one group to another, but they are clearly concerned about how political development is geared.

Last year also saw labor disputes and unrest, while religious and ethnic sensitivities led to tension and open conflict in some places, such as East Timor, Central Java and West Java.

The people witnessing the ugly reality of the social gap closest up have also become increasingly sensitive to religious differences which feed into racial and ethnic conflicts in which one or another societal group feels unjustly left behind by others.

In three traditional trouble spots, East Timor, Irian Jaya and Aceh, separatist activities continue.

It is strongly possible, if 1995's trends continue, that this year the United Development Party and the Indonesian Democratic Party, which registered complaints over irregularities and manipulation after each of the previous general elections, will become even more critical of the way the government handles preparations for the polls to be held in 1997. They can be expected to increase their demands for a clean election.

These parties believe their demands are justifiable because after five polls the public deserves justice and fair elections. These rising demands can be expected to increase tension in society if the parties' supporters sense indications the authorities intend to use the polls as a means to preserve the status quo. We should not see these political protests as trivial because 1996 is sure to prove to be different from 1992 or 1987.

The President was accurate in saying that whatever the reason -- economic, social, cultural or political -- any turmoil will mean a setback for our nation as a whole.

Turmoil of any sort, for any reason, should be avoided because the cohesion of our nation remains fragile and any catastrophe will negate our economic achievements.

To avoid calamity we must learn from the past, at the very least from last year's experiences. We should seriously study the roots of all crises and try to weed them out of our nation's existence.

We should also bear in mind that the problem of public sensitivity will only get worse in the absence of social justice and that stability will simply crumble if the fight for justice is neglected. This is the reason why our founding fathers listed social justice before prosperity in the nation's constitution.