Scapegoating in the New Order

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.