Rioters riding on public discontent

Rioters riding on public discontent

Darkness engulfed the long stretch of Jl. Kramat Raya, Jl.
Salemba Raya and Jl. Matraman Raya in Central Jakarta on the
evening of July 27. The nearby Jl. Diponegoro, Jl. Proklamasi,
Jl. Cikini Raya. Jl. Surabaya and Jl. Pegangsaan were equally
quiet and dark, save for similar explosions from burning
structures and the cheering and hand clapping from the crowd. The
nearly full moon, which rose brightly at the break of dusk, was
hidden by thick smoke rising from the burning buildings along the
closed streets. Spectators, who earlier in the day were engaged
in a battle with the police and military, watched quietly as the
red, angry flame licked the buildings. Some cheered and clapped
their hands when an explosion was heard from the burning
structures. The police officers and troops watched quietly.
Someone was heard saying, "As a nation, we should be ashamed."

JAKARTA (JP): How does one explain such an attitude by the
public, when an act of destruction became a "heroic" deed that
warranted loud applause?

"From the psychological point of view, what happened (that
day) is called displacement of hostility," says psychiatrist
Prof. Dadang Hawari.

Such an act happens when one is vulnerable, he adds.

"Take the riot in Los Angeles that broke out in 1992 following
the beating of black motorist Rodney King by white policemen.
Logically, the rioters would have attacked white people. They did
not. Instead, they attacked other people: the Chinese, Japanese
and Koreans. This is because they were helpless when dealing with
the whites and also because they were jealous of the achievements
of the other ethnic groups," Dadang said.

Similarly, this happened during the July 27 riot. The people,
dissatisfied with current conditions, were suddenly confronted
with an opportunity to vent their emotions, he said.

"The recent riot also shows there is an uncertainty and people
live in fear for their safety. Who can tell that when I leave my
house empty, someone will not rob it? Rumors about bomb attacks
crippled the city. That goes to show how fragile our society is."

Dadang believes that what happened was nothing more than an
explosion of internal conflicts (within the Indonesian Democratic
Party, PDI) which ignited other outside conflicts.

"It is common that in such a situation, certain individuals or
groups, deliberately or otherwise, take advantage of the
conflicts to vent their frustrations caused by the problems of
the wide gap between the rich and the poor, unemployment and high
crime rates," he maintained, adding that he was not saying that
certain individuals or groups were riding behind the PDI
conflicts that led to last week's rioting.

According to Dadang, the authorities should look to the root
of the problems to prevent similar incidents in the future.

"They should also look at the incident from the point of view
of the psychology of the masses, not just from a political point
of view. They should handle the problems through a welfare
approach instead of resorting to a security approach only," he
said.

Taufik Abdullah, a professor of history and a senior
researcher at the Indonesian Science Institute, said a riot is a
sign that there is something wrong in a society.

"It could be the result of injustice and dissatisfaction with
current conditions," Taufik said.

Taufik shares Dadang's view that understanding the psychology
of the masses is important in the handling of such cases. He said
that history reveals that the majority of government officials do
not understand the psychology of the masses.

Improper handling of a riot will have bad impacts on society.
People will lose their trust in almost everything, including the
authorities and the media, he warned.

He said the government should also be careful with their
allegations that the riot was masterminded by communists.

It is common that a regime bears a historical vengeance, he
said. The New Order government, after a bad experience with the
Indonesian Communist Party (PKI), often claims that dissidents
are members of the banned party, he said.

Taufik appealed to the government to not easily accuse anyone
as being the source of the riot.

"Let's take a look at several important events that had
triggered the riot. The government made a number of errors before
the riot," the professor explained.

The tension began increasing in June when the government-
sponsored PDI congress in Medan elected Soerjadi as chairman of
the party. Then came the meeting between President Soeharto and
Soerjadi and his supporters at the President's office, he said.

Soeharto's approval of Soerjadi's leadership basically ousted
PDI's leader, Megawati Soekarnoputri, from the party. In
desperation, she and her faithful supporters held a series of
free speeches at PDI's headquarters, which later attracted non-
members.

"In such an open forum, it is very difficult for people,
particularly the `beaten' ones, to carefully control their
emotions and actions. Mulutmu, harimaumu: Your mouth is your
tiger. But it was the violent takeover of PDI's headquarters by
Soerjadi's supporters that triggered the riot. Soerjadi had
opened a `Pandora's box'," Taufik said.

Astrid Susanto, a professor of mass communication and director
for social, political and cultural affairs at the National Agency
for Development Assessment, says in a riot, groups of people may
do anything they never dreamt of doing as individuals.

In a riot, a man's animal instincts surface. Their actions are
wild and unpredictable because they do not use their rationales
and emotions as human beings, Astrid said.

"All their actions are impulsive and instant. Therefore, it is
very hard to blame someone for a riot. They riot together," the
professor said.

As for the media, news on riots and chaos may be very exciting
or frightening, depending on how they present their reports.

"In this case, social ethics are very important. If all media
people feel responsible to present objective coverage, they can
play a significant role in stabilizing the chaotic condition. On
the other hand, if reporters and editors get excited and
emotionally involved in the situation, their reports will
certainly have great influence on society and will worsen the
problem.

Despite the advance of high technology in communications,
reports from local newspapers, television and radio stations are
still dominant here. "All foreign media including CNN, BBC, and
ABC, as well as the Internet, can only access a very limited
audience in Indonesia," Astrid said.

The professor urged the local media to try to restrain their
feelings and emotions when covering a riot.

Hotman Siahaan, a sociologist from the University of
Airlangga, Surabaya was not quite surprised with the outbreak of
the riot.

"Riots easily occur when there is a crowd. It is easy for the
mob to deviate from social norms and become violent. If one
throws a stone, others will follow. This can happen anywhere,
when people are frustrated," Siahaan said.

After the riot comes a period of restlessness and panic. In
such a condition, people are easily alarmed by rumors such as
those of bomb threats.

"When you panic, (your) common sense vanishes. Everybody is
gripped with fear and is easily trapped by rumors," he said.

Even though the authorities had stated that the rumors (of
bomb threats) were baseless and that the city was safe, people
were still jittery.

"People don't believe the statements because they lack
transparency," he said, referring to the denial of public and
media access to information on the number of those missing and
killed during the riot.

"People don't trust the press, either. If you say `yes', they
interpret it as `no.' They use reverse logic," he said.

Lt. Gen. (ret.) Sayidiman Suryohadiprojo believes last week's
riot was provoked and that the one responsible had taken
advantage of people's dissatisfaction with current social and
political conditions.

"Even though people were upset, if no one had started it, the
riot would not have broken out," he said.

Sayidiman, a former governor of the National Resilience
Institute, is currently an ambassador-at-large for the Non-
Aligned Movement.

He supported the Armed Forces' (ABRI) allegation on the role
of the Democratic People's Party (PRD) as the agent of the
provocation, who tried to topple the government through
radicalism and revolution.

"Reading the party's political manifesto, I tend to believe
the allegation. They don't mention Pancasila in the statute.
What's more, they use the terms of Moscow's communists, such as
`progressive revolution'."

He associated the riot with the now-defunct PKI's abortive
coup of 1965. Some children of PKI members who were killed
following the coup might want to take revenge, he said.

Commenting on the way the military handled the riot, Sayidiman
said they did it well. "They were mature. They did not fire."

Chief of the Nahdlatul Ulama Moslem organization Abdurrahman
Wahid, better-known as Gus Dur, believed that the riot was the
result of too much interference from people outside PDI on the
party's conflicts.

However, he said people still believe that ABRI is objective
and fair.

"Let's all maintain this image. That's our duty as
Indonesians," he said.

Gus Dur called upon the military to be careful in handling the
case.

"I appeal to the security officers to be careful in deciding
who created the chaos and the kind of things they had done."

"They must be careful. Otherwise, things can become `fatal'.
People will not trust ABRI anymore," he said. (lem/raw/sim)

J.E. Habibie -- Page 2

Photo display -- Page 7