Real or perceived threat?

Real or perceived threat?

One of the latest buzzwords in Indonesian politics is
"disintegration". Senior government and military officials have
been raising the alarm lately about the possibility of Indonesia
breaking apart the same way that the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia
collapsed.

They base their argument on recent developments. There is the
growing demand for independence in East Timor, Irian Jaya and to
a lesser extent Aceh. Other regions are calling for greater
autonomy and for a greater share of the national pie. Some people
say the May riots, which had ethnic overtones, suggest deep
hatred between different groups in this diverse society. They
argue that the establishment of political parties along sectarian
lines is a major threat to national unity. Then, there has been
talk of turning Indonesia from a unitary to a federal state.

There has been endless discourse on the threat of national
disintegration. We have had experts at seminars and on TV
talk shows discussing the subject. These officials and experts
appear to agree that the threat exists. But no one questions
whether the threat is real or perceived. A closer analysis would
suggest that the threat is perceived, and it is mostly in the
minds of government and military officials.

East Timor, Irian Jaya and Aceh have had a long history of
separatist movements. If the demands sound louder today, it is
due to the greater political openness, though not necessarily
because of greater tolerance. The demand for greater autonomy
from other provinces reflects their frustration at the heavy hand
of the central government in running their affairs.

The May riots had their origins in anything but ethnic
conflicts, especially since it is now an established fact that
organized groups were behind them. Sectarian political parties
have been founded because existing parties have failed to promote
or defend the interests of their groups, and not because they
intend to impose their agenda on the rest of the nation.

The proposal for a federal state surfaced as an option because
of the failure of the unitary state in solving some of the
nation's problems. It is anything but a threat, and could in fact
provide a viable alternative solution to our problems.

If the threat of national disintegration is perceived rather
than real, the government's responses often have been real, and
excessive.

The military operations against insurgences in East Timor,
Irian Jaya and Aceh are cases in point. The government has
dismissed aspirations for an independent state, or for a
referendum, as coming from a tiny minority of the populace. Yet
the military launched operations to put down these rebellions on
a scale that suggests that the threat was serious.

The abduction of a bunch of young political activists by the
Army's Special Force provides another example of how the military
was prepared to deal firmly with even the slightest perceived,
rather than real, threat to the state and the political system.

Even the threat to the present unitary state concept should
not be exaggerated. Although proponents of a united states of
Indonesia are limited, a healthy discourse on the issue could
shed light on the advantages and disadvantages of the two
different systems. Even if we do not move toward a federal state,
we could incorporate some of the elements used in a federal state
as we grant autonomy to the regions.

Any discourse on the threat of national disintegration must
put the issue in its proper proportion, and consider whether the
threat is real or perceived. Those who raise the alarm and are
prompted to react to these threats are still living in a bygone
era where security was the overriding concern. They are the ones
who often make a federal case out of these so-called threats.