http://www.asiaviews.org/?content=45tyg70tukmh098&infocus=20070823043546
The problem of multi-ethnicity in Indonesia
AsiaViews, Edition: 30/IV/August/2007
Indonesia is a multi-ethnic and multi-religion society but for most of
its 62-year history as an independent nation-state, the Indonesian ruling
elites have chosen not to deal with this reality. Their offensive and degrading
interactions with colonialism in the past, together with their bad experience
with various 'local' uprisings during the early years of independence, led to a
'a strong obsession with unity'. Now we can see how much this obsession has
harmed the Indonesian people. Today we are paying the price.
Soekarno's decision in 1959 to adopt Guided Democracy as the governing
principle of his reign and Soeharto's New Order policy to prohibit discussions
on issues of SARA (Suku, Agama, Rasial and Antar Golongan-Ethnic groups,
Religion, Race, and Intra groups) were all motivated by that obsession. So for
more than five decades, Indonesians pretended to have a harmonious relationship
with each other even when conflicts were occurring everyday. The Soeharto
regime in particular has, for the three decades of his power, successfully 'put
conflict under the carpet'. Except for recurring incidences of anti-Chinese
sentiments in 1974, 1977, 1980 which reached its peak in the tragic May 1998
Riots, there was little information about conflicts around the country. Some
ethnic Chinese Indonesians would argue that anti-Chinese sentiments were
purposely nurtured in order to divert the people's attention away from other
kinds of conflict, especially state-society conflict.
The situation went out of control after the 1996/1997 economic crisis
which led to the fall of Soeharto's regime in 1998. During the first six-seven
years after the new era of 'Reformasi' was proclaimed, social unrest happened
in various places of the country, from Kalimantan and Maluku to Aceh, Poso and
Papua. Nowadays, ethnic and religious issues have become the most important
determinant in Indonesia's social and political life. It seems that after years
of 'forced unity', the people have become too over- enthusiastic about
re-learning the diversity among them and emphasizing the differences. In so
doing, locality, ethnicity and religion have begun to create new problems of
ethno-nationalism and separatism.
Our question now is 'shouldn't we re-learn unity and be united again?'
Considering the archipelagic nature of our country, where each island
produces different goods that are being exchanged for the consumption by
others, we actually should rediscover the meaning of unity. No island,
especially the small ones like West Timor, would be able to support itself
without the help from the peoples of the other islands, a reality that is
reflected in the busy flow of people and goods in every day inter-island
exchanges.
But how should we re-learn unity? The answer is 'from history'.
Clearly, mutual dependency, common interest, and a simbiosis mutualistic
relationship have been developed over the ages and created a connectivity
between the islands as well as between the people who occupy these islands. Our
history has shown that the Nusantara archipelago, through its inter-island
trading network, has become a social, economic and political entity which can
only grow with cooperation between the inhabitants of its numerous islands.
As many historical records indicate, way back in the past Nusantara was
widely known as a rich and prosperous place which attracted many foreigners to
come and trade various local crops with the natives. Obviously it was the
cooperation between the natives themselves which created a good impression of
them in the eyes of foreigners and was an attractive pull factor.
If in the past unity gradually became a valuable necessity, today unity
is similarly a must, if not more crucial, particularly under the pressures of
current economic globalization. Without cooperation and unity, we certainly
would not be able to compete with other countries.
In forging this unity, even the ethnic Chinese, Arab and Indian
Indonesians should be included because each group has their own unique
sociological role that cannot be replaced by other ethnic groups. Their
contribution to the so-called Indonesian nation-state was written in the
stories of their migration, settlement and existence in this country full of
social and cultural exchanges, not to mention their friendly cooperation with
the locals throughout the generations particularly before the Dutch colonial
occupation. These groups, together with the locals, as a whole represent the
diversity of Indonesia. As many have said, this diversity is a social asset
that should be utilized to achieve the common goals specified in the 1945
Constitution of Indonesia, namely the people's freedom from oppression, their
prosperity, security and dignity.
Finally, as a lesson learnt, the Indonesian case has proven that
diversity and unity is not a zero-sum choice. Both are an undeniable part of
the society with neither one more important than the other. The mistake made by
Indonesians was to emphasize the importance of unity by neglecting diversity.
The result was chaos still felt today.
To change the situation, the Indonesian leaders have to find the proper
equilibrium between their desire for national unity (repeatedly articulated by
military leaders as NKRI-short for Negara Kesatuan Republik Indonesia or
Unitary State of Republic Indonesia-being "a fixed price") and adequate respect
for the Indonesian people's diversity, their different beliefs, cultures and
traditions. Only then can Indonesia achieve peace and stability.
By Thung Ju Lan, Senior Researcher, The Research Center for Society and
Culture of The Indonesian Institute of Sciences
Asiaviews, August-September 2007
<<infocus20070823-8.jpg>>
