Violence leads to disintegration

Violence leads to disintegration

The cycle of violence rolls on. Abductions of activists, the
fatal shooting of Trisakti University students, the May riots,
robberies, looting, murder and now the gruesome Banyuwangi
killing spree. Franz Magnis-Soeseno, professor of social
philosophy at Driyarkara School of Philosophy, looks at the
implications for the country.

Question: Is there any political motive behind the spate of
violence throughout the country?

Magnis-Soeseno: We cannot speculate. Several parties are
trying to speculate that the recent violent episodes have been
engineered by certain people. Such speculation needs evidence.
But the question is why have people resorted to violence to solve
problems.

I think the outbreak of violence has something to do with the
social situation and the power structure over the past 30 years.
During the New Order era, for example, social conflicts were
frequently solved not through discourse, but through bribes or
threats, which were sometimes followed by violent actions. Most
of the victims of such violence were common people and some
others were intellectuals and non-governmental organization
activists.

During those decades, the people were in a weak position
because of the government's depolitization program. They have had
to be submissive to the government since the bureaucracy, from
the top down to the village level, has taken sides with the
government, not the people.

In such a situation, violent outbreaks, hatred, suspicion and
intimidation are inevitable. The recent violent actions are
merely manifestation of reactions toward the accumulation of
repressive measures conducted by the government over the decades.

Q: Were the violent outbreaks organized by certain parties?

M: It is difficult to say that the incidents were spontaneous,
and it is possible that they were organized by certain parties.
But that possibility must be proven by the police.

To me, the actions did not show any clear patterns. They
seemed to have occurred with different motivations of the local
people.

However, what is clear is that local people, filled with
feelings of vengeance, suspicion and intimidation, are easily
incited to commit violent actions. This indicates that the people
do not have a sense of belonging to their country, nor reaping
the "fruits" of development. They do not seem to bother whether
their actions are harmful to the public interest.

Now that the post-Soeharto government is weak, the people have
a tendency to do what they wish in their own way. Such a
phenomenon is endangering the integrity of the nation.

Q: Why is the security personnel often slow in handling violence?

M: I also wonder about that. The military and the police are paid
by the people to enforce laws and protect them, but they are
always slow in carrying out their tasks. The level of their
professionalism seems to be very low, such as the use of live
ammunition against demonstrators. Perhaps they are confused about
their own identity and cannot maintain their demeanor when they
are criticized. It seems clear that their leadership is depleted.
So, the weaknesses in carrying out their constitutional tasks lie
with their leaders.

Q: Why can't our laws be effective in preventing such violence?

M: It has been a long tradition. During the Guided Democracy
period (beginning in 1959), the government sacrificed laws for
the sake of revolution. During the New Order era, corruption and
cronysm overrode the laws and anything could be arranged with
payment. At present, the government is so weak that it cannot
enforce the laws. So the government lacks political power and it
leaves us anxious.

Q: What may happen if we cannot end the outbreaks of violence?

M: The result will be very serious. Unless we end the violence,
we will never succeed in developing our economy and democracy.
Theoretically, a state is established to provide protection for
its people. If the state does not function as it is supposed to,
the country will disintegrate through crime and violence. Under
such disintegration -- which is not identified with separationist
movements based on regional or religious interests -- people will
retreat from society because they will be suspicious of each
other, including the government.

Q: How should we overcome such problems?

M: Actually, the disintegration has not reached a level that will
paralyze the country. If our leaders, both civilian and military,
are willing to be consistent in respecting justice and ending
various equivocations -- including the release of political
prisoners -- they will be able to overcome the disintegration
problem.

The government's refusal to release political prisoners
indicates that it does not want to end oppressive measures.

Q: Will the current political reform help solve the problem?

M: The problem is that the government is not fully committed to
reform and government officials are not united. Some of them are
even trying to hinder the programs of the others. The Armed
Forces, for example, has stated that it is, in principle,
supporting reform but, in practice, it sometimes hinders the
progress of reform. (riz)