RI pluralism mismanaged

RI pluralism mismanaged

Nico Harjanto & Christine Susanna Tjhin, Researchers, Department
of Politics and Social Change Centre for Strategic and
International Studies (CSIS), Jakarta

Since the transition to democracy began five years ago,
Indonesia has been rocked by widespread communal conflicts. The
prolonged conflicts in Aceh and ethno-religious violence in
Maluku and Central Sulawesi's town of Poso reflect the
mismanagement of pluralism in Indonesia.

One proposal for solutions focus on the enforcement of
regional autonomy. However, the question of whether regional
autonomy is feasible must be readdressed by probing into the
fundamental question of whether cultural rights have been
properly addressed.

Regional autonomy policies may be useful, yet its
implementation tends to neglect issues of cultural rights over
economic and political rights. Managing pluralism becomes
virtually impossible without adequate acknowledgement of cultural
rights.

The essential idea of multiculturalism and/or pluralism is
that there should be proper acknowledgement of and respect for
cultural rights of all individuals and/or communal groups. Such
acknowledgement can only be obtained through the establishment of
certain policies that accommodate:

(1) the right to attain sufficient capacities that permit one
to participate in one's own culture;

(2) the right to cultivate one's own chosen cultural identity,
e.g. using one's own language, fostering and practicing one's own
traditions as a distinct way of life, etc. (UN Charter of 1966
regarding cultural human rights).

Indonesia has yet to ratify the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, therefore we lack one
foundation to ensure adequate acknowledgement.

Complications are inevitable once policies are formulated and
various groups raise various cultural claims to policy makers. J.
T. Levy proposes eight possible categories for special policies
relevant to cultural pluralism, which are:

(1) Exemptions from laws that impair minority rights. The
Sikhs, for example from India, who wear turbans may be exempt
from the helmet law.

(2) Assistance in all the things that the majority can do
unassisted. Multilingual ballots and governmental information,
affirmative action as well as financial assistance to minorities
are among the examples.

(3) External rules, by restricting non-group members' freedom
to protect a group's culture and heritage. Outsiders of the group
should be restricted from possessing or buying a minority group's
cultural artifacts.

(4) Recognition/enforcement of traditional legal codes by the
national legal system. Traditional customs and laws such as the
nagari system with the Minangkabau people of western Sumatra, or
the adat in Dayak community, for instance, should be recognized
as legitimate local laws for those groups.

(5) Facilitating self-government for minority groups;

(6) Granting symbolic claims such as a national holiday;

(7) Allowing internal rules by the members to enforce a
group's customs and laws;

(8) Giving minorities representation quotas in politics.

In the case of Indonesia, some of these schemes have been
adopted as policy. However, the fundamental problem is that there
is no clear legal and political acknowledgement of cultural
rights.

The political system is dubious in its basic operating
principles. There is no consensus over the basic value of
politics. Should the political system be based upon the primacy
of individual freedom, limited government role and free market
economy, or should it focus on the primacy of common good,
extensive government paternalism and a state-controlled economy?

To what extent should the government get itself involved in
the appreciation of citizens' cultural rights (as individuals and
as part of communal groups)? Surely (or preferably) not all the
way.

Only after the four recent amendments to the Constitution did
we see some partial attempt to address issues of diversity.
Article 18 (on regional authority), Article 28 (on human rights
related to religious practices and culture) and Article 32 (on
education and local languages). Operational laws, however, remain
vague and ambiguous in practice. The government imposes rigid
rules on addressing pluralism, instead of creating and fostering
a conducive atmosphere.

The law on marriage is one blatant, typical top-down
intrusion. Citizens do not have legal assurances for inter-
religious marriage. Another is the agrarian law. The right of
land possession based on traditional customs and laws for some
minorities is not guaranteed, as the state can arbitrarily claim
certain its land.

The latest controversial bill on national education again
stipulates the extensive role of the state in an individual's
life by forcing students to study their own religion at schools,
even private religious schools that may be of a different
religion than some of its students.

In summary, managing pluralism is in the hands of both the
state and civil society. But the core drive relies upon
constitutional reforms that cautiously acknowledge and address
the complex issues of cultural rights. Therefore, it is important
to tackle these issues in the next constitutional debates by
involving the opinions of the key elements of the civil society.