Reforms needed to curb violence

Reforms needed to curb violence

By A. Wisnuhardana

YOGYAKARTA (JP): The new year was greeted with apprehension
and fears of more unrest instead of good cheer and hope. The
prevalence of violence in recent years has left the Indonesian
community unconvinced that these incidents will decline. Last
year, in the towns of Situbondo, Tasikmalaya, Sanggau Ledo, Tanah
Abang, Rengasdengklok, etc., there were a series of deplorable
acts. The general election, it was thought, was a likely
explanation for the violence which was mushrooming as a social
phenomenon. This hypothesis became a certainty and people were
convinced that violence would subside after the election.

However, the hypothesis became void when social mass violence
recurred after the election. Dissatisfaction among community
members was apparently not dependent on the outcome of the
election. And such a simple political analysis cannot explain the
ferocity which followed the election brutalities.

It would not be wise, either, to look for scapegoats for the
various cases of violence, as the security forces and bureaucracy
attempted. Why? First, looking for scapegoats leads people to
question and then disbelieve the accusations. Take the riot in
Jember some time ago. It was supposed to have been generated by
communists and other left-wing groups. (The Jakarta Post, June
17, 1997.) Why should people doubt such an assumption? Because in
the history of the New Order government the roots underlying
incidents of large-scale political violence have never been
found. Most of the solutions have been accusations well beyond
the grasp of the community.

Second, raising this kind of awareness in the community, which
was historically shaped from the trauma of the communist revolt
in 1965, creates the idea that it is impossible to eradicate the
communist movement. In that context, a distortion has emerged
between our hopes and the suggestive mechanism introduced by the
state to the community. As a result, an impression is created
that it is the security apparatus and bureaucracy who are keeping
alive the communist ideology in the community. (Compare Y.B.
Mangunwijaya's article in Forum Keadilan of August 26, 1996.)

We often observe hidden violence which is committed by the
security forces and bureaucracy. Behind the shield of political
stability and security there is room for structural violence.
With the passing of laws and regulations, violence has been
institutionalized within the power structure, starting from
political power at high levels down to the lowest level. The
control of the community in this way has caused people to become
apathetic toward involvement with the bureaucracy.

In middle class intellectual circles, the root of violence is
seen as the laws which put shackles on a person's freedom of
association and expression. In public life, there is almost
always a curbing of civil and political rights. One source of
restriction is the package of five laws issued by the government
in 1985. These laws not only reflect the excessive fear of
differences in opinion in the political community and of
inefficiency as a result of the differences, but also suppress
the opportunity for the community to grow independently. Such an
opportunity would allow the infrastructure of a democratic order
to grow.

Now, the community is increasingly aware of the limited
political space. Honestly speaking the economic development of
the New Order has in fact brought about tremendous changes in the
economic structure. However, the choice of economic development
strategy has also introduced people to an awareness of their
political rights.

In many Asian countries with miraculous economic development,
there is often a paradox between economic growth and the
implementation of democratic life. Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia
and South Korea have had extraordinary economic success, but many
civil and political rights have not been recognized.

In Indonesia, the general election, as one of the mechanisms
for power change, is touted as a time to create a power balance
among the existing political groups. The increasingly sharp
polarization between community groups that wish for
sociopolitical change and those who want to maintain the power
structure, could actually be dealt with in the general election.
In democratic countries, the general election really is a forum
for the peaceful exchange of power.

The failure to create a constitutional framework that provides
a bridge between those wishing a change and those wanting a
status quo, has resulted in violence and other unconstitutional
measures. Previously, there was a successful end to the general
election, subscribed to by all the contestants, but it did not
automatically solve the sociopolitical gaps and differences.

This was illustrated by PDI-Megawati supporters celebrating
the disastrous result achieved by PDI-Soerjadi in the election.
The PDI's defeat in the election was viewed as a brilliant
victory for the party's own members and sympathizers who were
loyal to Megawati's leadership. For them, PDI's disaster was a
moral victory that deserved joyous celebration.

The logic used by present-day political parties is to gain an
opportunity within the narrow limitations of politics. Golkar's
dominance in the House of Representatives does not make the
executive power controllable due to the centralized nature of
political culture in the executive institution itself. Therefore,
the new idea of a dual party proposed by some intellectuals
remains difficult to carry out if the ultimate objective is to
have control over the implementation of power.

As described above, political violence remains real in our
eyes. The arguments used by the power implementors -- who in the
recent election gained a victory de jure -- did not indicate a
change of policies toward the creation of a better democracy. As
a result, conflict and violence are undeniable sine qua non. In
daily life, violence can take the form of a strike by a group
that is harmed by a policy relating to them. The spread of
strikes by public transportation drivers in several cities
recently, mainly in Jakarta and its surrounding areas, can be
interpreted in the same context.

A crisis in the community's trust, relating to bureaucratic
policies, is continually occurring and a basic change of policies
is needed to shape the political structure at the national level.
If social risk is calculated, the increase in continued civil
disobedience may result in cost far greater than political reform
that takes into account the people's interests and aspirations.

Without considering the possibility of political reform at the
national level, continued violence may result in something
more frightening and inclined to crush the positive things we
have achieved.

The writer is an observer of social affairs. He is also a
researcher at the Forum of Social and Humanistic Studies in
Yogyakarta.