Violence against Minorities and Human Rights Issues

Kompas

Didie SW

Over the last decade, Indonesia has earned negative marks on violence against minorities.

To illustrate, in 2012, a Human Rights Watch (HRW) report described Indonesia as a country with a high rate of violence against minorities. Then-president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono was asked to lower the increased potential for violence against minorities in Indonesia.

This criticism affirmed that in the eyes of the international community, Indonesia was a country that was intimately involvement with violence, especially against minorities. The criticism also warned us, particularly the government, to play a more stringent role in preventing violence against minority groups and protecting them. The HRW report lent a negative tone to the Indonesian image in the international worldview. In a broader context, the HRW report served as a serious reference for cases of human rights violations in Indonesia.

Also read:

> Bold and Initiating Collaboration

> Sisca Wiguno, Resilience of a Doctor

> It Brings Happiness to Share with Others in Hard Times

The commemoration of Human Rights Day on 10 Dec. 2021 is tantamount to this moment, as well as a reflection that violence against minorities in Indonesia has become a never-ending problematic issue. In terms of its pattern, it is even more systematic and institutionalized in various forms. We should warn the state that minorities, whatever their type, must be protected by the state, instead of being left subject to violence.

The HRW report referred to cases that took place in 2019 and 2020. Although the report was released almost nine years ago, it is still relevant in that it has continued to remind us of these cases of violence against minorities for the last several years.

The results of the survey, which was conducted in 2018, showed that public awareness still needed to be increased on the issue of racial and ethnic discrimination.

Other interesting data from Tirto.id was released on discrimination and intolerance towards minority groups, especially in terms of religious tolerance, which was compiled by the National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM) and Kompas Research and Development in a report titled Public Opinion Survey on the Effort to Eliminate Racial and Ethnic Discrimination in 34 Provinces. The results of the survey, which was conducted in 2018, showed that public awareness still needed to be increased on the issue of racial and ethnic discrimination.

A total of 81.9 percent of respondents said they felt more comfortable living in their family circle, while 82.7 percent said they felt more comfortable living in the same racial community, and 83.1 percent of respondents said they were more comfortable living in a community with the same ethnic background.

What is so interesting about these survey findings? It is unbelievable that a series of uprisings happen in the country every day. The widespread occurrences of violence against minorities are related to freedom of religion and belief, especially those objecting to the construction of mosques or churches in communities that embrace a different majority faith.

Labyrinth of violence

It is so easy for our people to commit acts of violence. Our people seem to be like dry grass that is ready to burn. Within minutes, they can become enraged and go berserk. They are frequently brutal in their violent acts. Several times, government offices like the offices of regents and public service agencies have been set ablaze by the masses.

At the end of 2020, we were shocked to hear of the slaughter of one family in Sigi regency, Central Sulawesi. The tragedy that resulted in the deaths of four residents of a minority group occurred on 27 Nov. 2020, when the perpetrator stole 40 kilograms of rice and burned six homes. This tragedy of humanity cannot be justified for whatever reason and as civilized citizens, we should strongly condemn this act of cruelty. Any act of violence committed under whatever pretext that claims human lives is the most barbaric deed in the history of human civilization.

Kompas/Priyombodo

A mural of the figure of President KH Abdurrahman Wahid or familiarly called Gus Dur decorates a coffee shop in the Karang Tengah area, Tangerang City, Banten, Saturday (30/5/2020). Gus Dur is remembered as a leader who protects minorities.

The Sigi tragedy again made us reflect on the significance of humanity and civilization in the daily practices of our society. This critical reflection leads us to question whether life in our society can still enjoy what is called civilized life as Alfred Marshal called it, which all individuals can appreciate under the state’s protection of individual rights.

At the same time, what saddens us even more is the rampant recurrence of violence against minorities over the last few years. This practice of violent acts more greatly traps Indonesia in a labyrinth of violence. In other words, it is difficult to eliminate violence as a social mechanism from the groups that have surplus resources. This inequality of resources further perpetuates violence in the social order in a discursive way. As a result, the groups with a deficit in resources, which are minority groups, are increasingly marginalized in the sociocultural structure.

Rational of violence

In the post-New Order period, we have experienced a highly dynamic social condition. Horizontal social conflicts have become an undeniable fact. Upon tracing further back, during the New Order we had the policy that prohibited social conflicts. The potential for conflict was suppressed in this way, as it could disturb the political stability of those in power. Metaphorically, social conflicts were swept under the carpet so they did not appear on the surface.

Consequently, after the New Order regime collapsed, all hidden conflicts rose to the surface. The public was not taught to manage conflicts as an important dimension of social space, though the Reform Era has lasted 22 years. Unfortunately, during this period, various horizontal conflicts as well as different practices of civil violence seemed to be unending.

They have even escalated, with the roots their problems often being trivial. We can watch clear reports on television about student brawls that go out of control to destroy public buses or private cars in their vicinity. What more can we say, if our society is easily triggered emotionally to commit violence? I imagine that if these violent practices continue, it will be a threat to social cohesion and will be counterproductive to social development.

As explained by Erich Fromm, a psychoanalyst affiliated with the Frankfurt School, our society’s inclination toward violence is termed “destructiveness”. This refers to the character of a society that seeks to gain power by harming and destroying other groups deemed to cause disruption and discomfort for the groups that perpetrate the violence.

Eventually, the act of violence is rationalized as their task, duty and responsibility. This characteristic identified by Fromm essentially warns us against perpetuating violence in the cognitive structure of our society. If we observe the widespread pattern of the social reproduction of violence, our society then conforms to what Fromm portrayed as a sick society (1995).

This requires the provision of social, cultural, educational, economic, political and legal foundations that are capable of supporting social spaces that are conducive to the whole society.

In a sick society, we need to restore its condition to a healthy society. This requires the provision of social, cultural, educational, economic, political and legal foundations that are capable of supporting social spaces that are conducive to the whole society.

Citizenship policy

Eliminating acts of violence in our society as a rational part of society is not a simple matter. It requires various channels as well as sociocultural catalysts that are able to minimize the violence. The state, with its security personnel, is an important actor capable of offering social space as the basis for a healthy society. Minority groups with poor resources are the most vulnerable groups in the economic and political power relationship.

KOMPAS/FERGANATA INDRA RIATMOKO

People with disabilities and residents from minority groups take part in coffee blending training in Ngaglik District, Sleman, DI Yogyakarta, Friday (6/7/2018).

The absence of the state in the labyrinth of violence indicates that the state has failed to provide social protection to vulnerable groups. Consequently, in this unequal relationship, minorities are the groups whose rights are threatened and whose position in society is marginalized. This phenomenon has been widely experienced among the different minority groups that have been “sidelined” in the social contest.

Sociologically, our social relationship is facing a situation that has been called “without citizenship” (Robet, 2013:193). It is a situation in which the (minority) groups lose their identities and rights as a “result” of sociopolitical competition. In this context, a policy on citizenship is needed to encourage minority groups to claim their identities and rights as part of their citizenship.

The struggle for identity could counter the hegemony of resources that is very clearly in excess in the social contest. This mechanism will work if the state plays a strategic role in drafting various socioeconomic policies that provide protection for minority groups.

On the other hand, we have noticed clearly that the state, while its security personnel often arrives late, is powerless in the field and allows the acts of violence to proceed. Security personnel seem helpless in the face of the brutality of the masses. The police should be more responsive if they don’t want to be blamed for allowing the violence to take place.

Informal leaders in society have no less an important role in terms of developing social behavior. These leaders become a role model of society in terms of how they behave on a daily basis. The violent practices that have been rife of late make us feel concerned over the loss of dialogue as a mirror of social rationality. If some social groups have diverse thoughts and views as well as ideologies, I believe they can resolve the differences in an elegant manner through cultural dialogues that promote togetherness. In this way, if any counter discourse arises, we can be witness to productive discussions. Through this means, we can keep learning to grow into a highly civilized nation.

Rakhmat Hidayat, Sociologist at Jakarta State University (UNJ), fellow of Freedom of Religion and Belief, Gadjah Mada University Center for Religious and Cross-Cultural Studies (CRCS), 2020

(This article was translated by Aris Prawira).