Why do violence incidents occur?

By Makmur Keliat

SURABAYA (JP): The recent election campaign, which has been marred by violence, has shattered the limbo of political stability in Indonesia. Of great significance is the Banjarmasin tragedy that claimed 123 lives. The tragedy turned the campaign from a "festival of democracy" into a rampage.

Since a series of violent acts occurred before campaigning began, the question that now haunts people is will violence continue unabated in the coming months? The answer to this question largely depends on how we answer the following question: What should be done to prevent people from indulging in violence?

Violence is certainly a crime. Everybody agrees that destroying public facilities and private property, as occurred in the closing days of the campaign, must not be tolerated. It is a daunting peril to the continuity of development in Indonesia. But we should remember that punishing those involved in the recent riots would only be effective in the short-term. Legal sanctions have certain limitations in their efficacy in shaping people's behavior and in making them adhere to regulations.

In criminology, for instance, it has long been argued that the death penalty for murder will not automatically deter other people from committing the same act. We must remember that legal norms are merely one of the tools to maintain social order. Of no less significance are social norms such as customs and traditions. There is, in fact, no regulation that explicitly prohibits people to walk naked in public places. Yet, since we live in a civilized world, it is only those who are mentally disturbed who dare to go naked in public.

Considering this analogy, the recent spate of violence has nothing to do with the weakness of Indonesian regulations against acts of vandalism. The reality is, indeed, quite the reverse. Regulations concerning the freedom of expression in Indonesia are far more restrictive compared to those in developed countries, let alone with regard to violence. Therefore, one plausible reason behind the violence may lie in the deterioration of social norms. But imposing stricter rules by using and enforcing "rubber regulations" would not be a panacea in the long-term. Violence is likely to be a reflection of anomie and can be attributed to the lack of moral standards in society.

From reports in the mass media, one can clearly see that the targets of violence were mainly state-owned buildings and properties owned by big companies. One reason why the violence was directed toward state facilities and big private companies can be traced to the distinctive relationship between state and society in Indonesia. To a large extent, this relationship tends to be governed by the norms of paternalism. The government takes on the role of a father while society only follows suit. Father knows best and children are there only to be seen, not to be heard.

But there are always two requirements to preserve this kind of norm. First, there should be no gap between the father's words and his deeds. Otherwise, the power and legitimacy of the father will evaporate. Second, by rule of thumb, paternalism also implies that the father as a power holder should treat his children equally. If not, the cohesiveness between father and children and among the children themselves would be in disarray.

These requirements seem to have been largely neglected. It is no public secret that many government officials have displayed a discrepancy between word and deed. This has tarnished the image of the government as a trustworthy father. With regard to the second requirement, it is also easy to spot the discriminative facts. For instance, getting a driving license, an identity card (KTP) or a land ownership certificate always requires some unofficial payment -- the so-called "illegal levy". Otherwise, the bureaucracy can easily become red tape.

It is not strange to hear people saying that the acronym UUD Undang Undang Dasar (UUD or constitution) means ujung-ujungnya duit, meaning "in the end, it is money". Certainly, for the better-off and for those who have access to the big brass in the bureaucracy, this unwritten regulation creates no financial problem. A shortcut is always available for them. But for those who are not so fortunate, this has become an enormous burden and suggests that money is the universal constitution. As a consequence, although it has been said a thousand times that everybody is equal before the law, the existing impression remains on the contrary. The law is made for the haves.

It is against this backdrop that violence should be understood. Violence is partly a product of the "shortcut culture" prevailing in Indonesian society, articulated by the have-nots in the form of mobs. Since, by definition, the state is the sole institution in a society which has the legitimate right to avoid the onset of a lawless society and to exercise force on all individuals who reside within its jurisdiction, it comes as no surprise that violence has arisen as an expression of resistance against the state's monopoly of violence.

If we agree with this analysis, then there are several aspects we need to consider. First, violence should not be viewed as a product of idiosyncratic behavior. It is a function of dimming expectations, and a choice taken by rational human beings. Second, while it might be right to say that some have masterminded the recent violence, it is also worth remembering that "seeds cannot flourish on infertile land". In this context, social circumstances are the seedbeds on which hatred and violence are planted. Third, failure to take objective social circumstances into consideration could have a serious impact on Indonesia.

This would provide certain people with "fertile land" to disseminate the idea that development generates only a breakdown of legal certainty. As a result, the use of unlawful violence to gain political means and outbursts of frenzy would become endemic. Militants, mostly young and unemployed people, would continue fighting, armed with stones. The prevailing stability would be the silence of the graveyard.

The government needs to consider the fact that acts of violence designed to violate the legal basis of the state have been used throughout history. Violence has acquired a strong legitimacy on several occasions, such as in the struggle of the deprived and the oppressed, or in the name of anticolonialism and self-determination. Indonesia, which is known as a peace-loving nation and is admired because of its ability to preserve unity in diversity, should not be eager to change the situation.

The writer is a lecturer in the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Airlangga University, Surabaya.

Window A: Violence is partly a product of the "shortcut culture" prevailing in Indonesian society, articulated by the have-nots in the form of mobs.

Window B: The government needs to consider the fact that acts of violence designed to violate the legal basis of the state have been used throughout history.