Yellow policy colors public domain

Yellow policy colors public domain

The Central Java government's one-year old policy of painting
public properties yellow, the color of the ruling Golkar party,
has sparked protests from Union Development Party (PPP) activists
in Surakarta. They attacked the so-called "yellowization" policy
by whitewashing property. Head of the Center of Cultural and
Social Changes Research of Yogyakarta's Gadjah Mada University
Syafri Sairin shares his view with The Jakarta Post.

Question: How do you perceive the situation?

Answer: There is a difference of perception about the so-
called public sphere. The local mayor considers Surakarta his
authoritative area, while the people see the city as a public
domain. As such, any change to the city should be done through
public deliberation.

The local members of PPP feel they are being deprived of
something by force, something which rightly belongs to them. As
it was impossible to turn the color into green which is PPP's
party color, they painted it white, its original color.

Q: Is it a kind of counterattack?

A: I don't think so. They were just putting it back into the
public's domain. It was the easiest action to take by powerless
people. It's a kind of "weapon of the weak".

Q: Some see it as a new phenomenon. What do you think?

A: I don't think so. Such a thing could have happened in the
past. The explanation is simple. Whenever the public domain is
treated only in favor of a particular party instead of the whole
community, protest will emerge. Public spheres can be either
abstract or concrete. They may take the form of space or ideas.

An anthropologist named Foster introduced the so-called "idea
of limited goods". If a person is richer than others, the
person's wealth will automatically be thought of as a part of the
community's wealth as well.

This explains the old belief that rich people have to give
public charity as a "repayment" to the community. We cannot deny
that such a thinking exists in our community. It exists
everywhere.

To prevent the idea of limited goods causing conflict in
society, norms and values are created. Besides this, cooperation
and communication are also needed to create a sound environment.
Something which is considered no longer fit for the present
situation can be discussed for a change or solution.

Q: Do you think the Surakarta incident went beyond the system?

A: The question is whether they have an agreed system. If it
is considered beyond the system, which system are they referring
to? As far as I am concerned, they are referring to the local
government system. That's why PPP's action is considered beyond
the system. It's not clear to me which regulation they are
applying. "Yellowization" seems to be more a local government
officials' "creativity" rather than a Central Java government
regulation. Such an incident hasn't unfolded in other provinces,
including the nearby province of Yogyakarta.

Q: Why is this?

A: Again, it's because of the different perception of what
constitutes a public sphere between Central Java government
officials and Yogyakarta. But, of course, the explanation is not
that simple. There must be other reasons, including political
ones, behind the "yellowization" incident.

Q: But what if there is a disharmony between norms and values?

A: Let's put it this way. The highest value we respect is that
derived from the collective society. This value is then spelled
out into norms. The problem is there are written norms and
unwritten ones. If they are written, are they in line with our
governmental system and have they passed deliberation in the
House of Representatives? I don't see such a deliberation in the
Surakarta case.

Q: Some also see the case as a manifestation of a grassroots
movement. What do you think?

A: We have the tendency to contradict the grassroots and the
upper level of the community. Nevertheless, I don't think it's
necessary to do so in this case. It's obvious. If something is
done properly, people will react. We can see this throughout the
generations.

Should people think that such an incident was not possible in
the past, it's not because the present generation are more
courageous than their predecessors. The authority in the past did
not pose such an opposition to the public as they do today.

This also explains why such an incident took place only in
Central Java. The "yellowization" mania in Central Java has been
so absurd that the local people were not able to tolerate it any
longer.

It's an understandable reaction given the road marks which,
according to international convention, are black and white were
also painted yellow. It was even rumored the suitcases of
pilgrims to Mecca will also be made yellow. The Golkar chairman
Harmoko himself said it had gone too far.

Q: How can the problem be solved?

A: The elite really have to examine the problem. How does the
yellow policy's clear promotion of Golkar affect society? A
modern society has to be ready to evaluate this problem. There's
no need to be stubborn. Stubbornness is dangerous. That's why I'm
supporting those who suggest that a court settlement is the best
way to cool it down. (swa)

Syafri Sairin is lecturer of anthropology at Gadjah Mada
University, Yogyakarta.