Structural violence revisited

By Aleksius Jemadu

BANDUNG (JP): The recent riots in several places throughout the country has led us to believe that the only source of threat to our nation-building will come from open conflict among different ethnic and religious groups in our pluralistic society.

But the frequency and suddenness of the riots averted our attention from another source of threat to the political system, the phenomenon of structural violence.

This type of violence can damage the political system deep at its roots. The nature of this violence means that we cannot easily identify its presence without delving deeper into the basic assumptions of the functioning political system.

A good political system responds quickly once there is a demand for improvement in the working of political institutions. There is some mechanism of built-in control to prevent irregularities and infractions from occurring. This mechanism of self-control can only function if political leaders are sensitive enough in responding to aspirations from below.

The concept of structural violence, introduced for the first time by John Galtung, refers to "social structures leading to an expectation of life less than the biological potential... (Kenneth Boulding, 1992). The decline of one's life expectancy in this regard is linked to political and economic deprivation.

Structural violence exists if there is clear evidence that the expectation of life is below the biological potential as a result of oppression, poverty, nutritional deficiencies, pollution, deforestation, corruption, human ignorance, and other social problems.

This can be better understood if we make a distinction between different types of violence on the basis of whether or not there is a subject (person) who commits a violent act.

Based on this distinction, violence can be examined from two viewpoints. First, there is personal or direct violence in which a person commits a violent act. Second, there is structural or indirect violence where a person is hurt or mutilated. Any human suffering which is objectively avoidable can be said to be the result of structural violence even if there is no clear subject- action-object relation.

Thus, violence is committed when the functioning of a political system systematically denies the opportunity of certain groups in society to articulate their basic interests. Structural violence can also exist when the political system unjustifiably favors the promotion of political and economic interests of the ruling elite to the effect that the grassroots are deprived of their basic rights as legitimate carriers of the demand for social and economic justice.

In what sense can we say that structural violence could inflict more damage to the political system?

Material loss caused by direct violence can easily be recovered but the cost of social and economic injustice which is structurally embedded in the functioning of the political system cannot be restored without a fundamental change in the basic assumptions of the political system.

Those who are already satisfied with the statusquo will resist even a slight change in the prevailing modalities of the configuration of social and economic power. The change could shake their establishment.

Therefore, the advantaged group will always try to maintain the existing modes of governance for the allocation and distribution of authoritative values in society.

Normally a top to bottom approach in policy-making and implementation appears to be common practice.

At the same time, the centralization of control is perceived by the political elite as "a necessary strategy for ensuring the strength and stability of the state, for neutralizing or eliminating potential competitors for power, for promoting modernization and national unity, and for countering the centrifugal effects of ethnic pluralism". (Milton J. Esman, 1988)

The definition of public interest in policy processes should be regarded not as an outcome of democratic debates over social and economic problems but rather how the concept is perceived by the political elite or development managers within the framework of loosely-defined political stability and a very open-ended definition of national interest.

Healing the wounds inflicted by the presence of structural violence will necessitate the political willingness of the ruling elite to recognize people's sovereignty. Government officials may utter words and slogans about democracy but their actions and inactions speak louder than words.

Our people are clever enough to make a distinction between empty words and real commitment. Unlike the volatile situation of the revolutionary period, today Indonesia needs more effective development managers and less orators. More real action and less nonsensical statements are required.

Unfortunately, where political power is so centralized, government bureaucrats prefer to seek favor from their superiors or patrons and not from the people.

To some extent such bureaucratic pathology is made possible by the fact that promotion within government bureaucracies is determined more by favoritism and clientele relations rather than merit. Those who do not have connections with the ruling elite will have to be satisfied with their marginalized situation. This is just another type of structural violence.

Of particular importance in the process of democratizing the political system is the improvement of the role of our democratic institutions such as parliament, political parties, mass organizations, trade unions, non-governmental organizations, religious groups and others.

Given a conducive atmosphere, these institutions can do a lot in balancing the pervasive domination of the executive power in our political system.

One of the common weaknesses of political systems in developing countries is the fact that their parliament is subordinated to the position of the executive power. Control mechanisms from the legislative power tend to be ineffective because the executive power can pressure political parties to remove or "recall" members of parliament who act against the existing political establishment.

It follows that the social and political consequences of structural violence can only be restored by a recourse to structural remedies from within the system. The statesmanship of our political leaders is needed to improve our democracy.

It is only with their initiative that the political system can cure its structural illnesses. In a paternalistic society such as ours initiative from above is absolutely necessary. Good examples from political leaders can motivate the people to participate in the process of development in a more accountable way.

Unfortunately, as the political system increasingly represents the preservation of the statusquo, it is increasingly difficult to find statespeople among so many politicians.

The main difference between a statesperson and a politician is that a statesperson always tries to prioritize public interest and safety while a politician always tries to manipulate public interest in order to perpetuate his or her own position.

The more politicians there are instead of statespeople, the more our political life is replete with intrigue and nonsensical gossip which could destabilize the whole system.

This is precisely the reason why we need to be consistent in our efforts to realize Pancasila democracy no matter how costly it might be to the ruling elite.

If not, more structural violence would be tacitly committed and more mismanagement would result in the process of governance.

It is important to be aware of the presence of structural violence in our social and political life. People should have more opportunities to participate in deciding their tomorrow. If not today, when? Tomorrow may never be ours.

The writer is a lecturer in the faculty of social and political sciences at the Catholic University of Parahyangan, Bandung. He obtained his Ph.D. in social sciences from KU Leuven, Belgium.

Window A: Violence is committed when the functioning of a political system systematically denies the opportunity of certain groups in society to articulate their basic interests.

Window B: The more politicians there are instead of statespeople, the more our political life is replete with intrigue and nonsensical gossip which could destabilize the whole system.