Structural violence revisited

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.