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.