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