The dangers of allowing communalism to spread

By Makmur Keliat

SURABAYA (JP): Where is Indonesian politics heading? Why has social violence increased? Is it right to say that the recent violence in Situbondo, followed by Tasikmalaya and Rengasdengklok, symbolizes the resistance of the poor?

Various media analysis has put the answers to these questions under two broad categories. First, there are those who attempt to explain the issue from an academic viewpoint. Second, there are those who tend to simplify the situation by trying to find a scapegoat. If the first category has come from a critical perspective, the other has been mainly based on speculative thinking.

Irrespective of the existing divergent views, it is an undisputed fact that the series of violence indicates the vulnerability and violation of minority rights. In a wider perspective, we could also say that violence is conveying a signal that communalism is strengthening at the cost of nationalism. It is necessary to keep in mind, however, that intolerance of religion and ethnicity does not stem from religious beliefs.

India is one example. Though the country is constitutionally based upon the principles of unity in diversity, communal violence is a well known and widespread fact. It would be a mistake, however, if one assumed that religious precepts have sown the seeds of hatred among Indians. What has happened, as many Indian social scientists believe, is that communalism in that country, particularly between Moslems and Hindus, is an apotheosis of the uprooted India economy base overlapping with the opportunism of many political elites.

In a nutshell, though wrapped in the name of religion, communal violence has nothing to do with religion itself. It results from the anxiety of deprivation exploited by the political elite.

The importance of non-religious factors has become more relevant not only in the Indian case. If one examines abundant research reports on ethnic conflicts in developing countries from the perspective of ethnopolitics, one would find that various antecedent variables can create ethnic conflict, ranging from economic to psychological factors, from elite rivalry to the absence of a middle class as glue for social integration. And in most cases, they are not mutually exclusive.

In the case of Indonesia, it is likely that the recent tendency towards communalism could be ascribed to the realities of development which overemphasizes its economic aspects. All activities tend to be judged from market and commercial terms. In contrast, activities which cannot be marketed are perceived marginal.

It is no wonder that within this kind of social interaction and cutthroat competition, it is not only morality which has been disregarded. People also do not gain equal rewards because their access to the market becomes limited or closed, or their skills do not have market value.

It is those who lag behind economically and have been marginalized in the process of development who are easy to be mobilized and agitated under communal politics.

If we accept this proposition, the remaining question is what should be done? One alternative is to encourage the government to strengthen its social welfare policies.

It is also necessary to make those who are concerned with the poor realize that reforms of the system should not be carried out through physical violence even though physical violence could bring a victory.

However, such a triumph would last for a short period only. According to an old proverb, the law of an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind. Therefore physical violence serves no purpose. This option also cannot be justified morally because its primary objective is to eliminate the enemies. It would also make social communication one-sided.

This does not mean that silence is the best alternative and no resistance is required. Doing nothing and being acquiescence cannot be justified morally. The reason is simple. Moral obligation not to cooperate with evil is the same as moral obligation to cooperate with good. If this is the case, the best alternative is to adopt non-violent resistance.

This strategy is indeed a synthesis of the first and the second alternatives. It admits that the oppressed should not be physically aggressive but at the same time it does not deny the importance of resistance.

However, resistance aims not to fight against the oppressor but against oppression. In this context, moral force among those who claim to be a protector of the oppressed is of great importance to launch such a resistance.

It is likely that without the presence of a moral force, resistance would not only fail but it would be misused by political adventurers for their short-term interests.

The writer is a lecturer at the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Airlangga University, Surabaya and holds a Ph.D degree from the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India.