Why do violence incidents occur?

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.