Scapegoating in the New Order
By Tjipta Lesmana
JAKARTA (JP): The origin of the term scapegoat, according to Gordon W. Allport, might be found in the Book of Leviticus (16:20-22). On the Day of Atonement a live goat was chosen to be sacrificed. An Israeli high priest laid his hands on the goat's head and confessed over it the sins of the children of Israel. In doing so these sins were symbolically transferred to the goat; it was then taken out into the wilderness and set free. The people felt purified, and for the time being, free of guilt.
This ritual act follows a simple rationale: guilt and misfortune can be shifted from men to animals. According to Allport, this ritual developed from animistic thinking which confused what is mental with what is physical. If a pile of wood can be shifted from one place to another, why then shouldn't sorrow, guilt or frustration?
This mental process is termed "projection" or "scapegoating". It is not only ourselves who are responsible for our own misfortunes, but other people as well. Sorrow, guilt and frustration are misfortunes which individuals frequently experience in their lives.
Those who always blame others for their wrong doing are termed extra-punitive while those who blame themselves are termed intro- punitive. Intro-punitive and extra-punitive types of personalities are partly attributed to culture.
Leaders in low-power distance cultures tend to be intro- punitive. Not being fond of using any pretexts while interacting, they are more honest. Power is regarded as something unworthy of worship.
Consequently, losing power is deemed something natural that should not be seen as too embarrassing. In Japan (a low-power culture society), a transportation minister held himself accountable for a plane crash when submitting his letter of resignation. Similarly in India a railroad minister announced his resignation because of a fatal train crash that claimed hundreds of lives.
However, people in a high-power distance culture tend to be context-centered. "Playing with words", especially among leaders, is an everyday phenomena. Every thing they say is dependent on its context which must be grasped before its meaning can be understood clearly. In these cultures, power is deemed extraordinarily. In terms of accountability, the leaders in these cultures are extra-punitive in type.
President B.J. Habibie, for example, unsubstantially accused a section of society of planning to topple his regime last November, when thousands of students battled with police in an incident which is popularly known as the "Semanggi Tragedy I".
Chairman of the Supreme Advisory Council A. Arnold Baramuli quickly blamed economist Kwik Kian Gie and his colleagues at the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan) for "blowing-up" the Bank Bali scandal, even after he had been officially implicated in the scandal.
During the New Order, any citizen challenging Soeharto's rule was quickly labeled as a "subversive" or a "communist".
A senior army general said that any act which could harm the positive image of the armed forces was not only unacceptable, but also that its perpetrators were liable for a heavy punishment. Those who committed these acts were accused of intentionally destroying the harmonious bond between the people and the armed forces. Scapegoating, blaming others for one's misfortune, was a common practice during the New Order.
Above all, it is our military (including the police) who are most willing to use the "scapegoat argument" when facing a problem.
A general or a commander never acknowledges responsibility when his subordinate's action inflicts casualties upon citizens. The statement by the Jakarta Police Chief that the death of Yun Hap, a student at the University of Indonesia, in recent rioting was caused by bullets originating from "another car" was typical scapegoating.
It proved very easy for the general to blame other agencies without any prior investigation. His statement was, unfortunately, nullified by the Military's spokesman Maj. Gen. Sudradjat who said that Yun Hap was shot by a heavily depressed soldier. He also stated to the press that the soldiers were from the Jakarta garrison.
At least seven people were shot dead in the recent rioting. Armed Forces Commander Gen. Wiranto has at no time expressed guilt or responsibility. He has even accused "destructive forces" of being behind the demonstrations.
"And I want to know who you are. Show your faces, please. Don't hide yourselves under the pretext of belonging to the students," he said.
The recent rioting in Semanggi reflects and reconfirms
* the familiar repressive ways used by the army and police to forcibly put down any student movement;
* the military's stance of refusing to admit to any wrong doing, and
* instead, to project this wrong doing on others.
We are reminded of the inter-ethnic violence in Maluku in which hundreds of people died. Gen. Wiranto accused provocateurs from outside of Maluku. He never once took seriously allegations that some elements of the military took sides when attempting to stop the violence. Unfortunately, efforts to reveal and bring to justice those provocateurs were never made, leaving us pondering what really went on and is indeed going on in Maluku.
In Aceh, the military persistently blames the "Aceh Independence Movement" (GAM) as the main culprit in the recent violence. The more soldiers Wiranto dispatches to Aceh, the more blood is shed. Caught in a delicate situation with much condemnation, Wiranto then accuses the national media of igniting the hatred of the Acehnese.
Interviews with GAM leaders in the press particularly upset Wiranto, which he regards as opportunities for GAM to publicize their arguments in their fight for independence.
The military's use of scapegoating is reminiscent of the New Order political system. The establishment in those days was beyond control. It consisted of an elite who deemed themselves infallible. Even if they did wrong, they quickly projected the evil onto others. The president, above all, was beyond criticism. Any act of eliciting hatred toward the president was tantamount to subversion.
As the president's henchmen, the military followed the autocratic-extra-punitive culture. And it is apparently very difficult for the military to abandon this culture, even though the New Order itself has collapsed. Gen. Wiranto has no appetite to research the bloody incidents which have characterized Habibie's regime. This is not too surprising if one remembers that Wiranto was handpicked by former president Soeharto for his present position.
But how can a man plagued by so many controversies, with so much "blood on his hands" and so many examples of scapegoating to his name be placed as vice president, or even president, in the upcoming Peoples Consultative Assembly? Chairman of the National Awakening Party Matori Abdul Djalil was right when he said recently that if the Habibie-Wiranto platform wins the presidential election on Oct. 20, then the New Order Chapter III will have begun.
The writer, a social scientist and graduate of the University of Chicago, is currently lecturing at the University of Indonesia.