Reconciliation at the Grass Roots
.
The Jakarta election is long over. After the result was announced, people analyzed the victory or defeat of their champions – including the respective causes – in their daily conversations and in social media. Conspiracy theories, various emotional reactions, rationalizations from the losing side and expectations of better times ahead for the new governor dominated the public discourse in the first two weeks after the election.
One thing was missing in the in-depth analysis of the socio-psychological impact of the election at the grass roots, which may potentially become a latent conflict.
No one denies that the dynamics of the 2017 Jakarta election are worthy of being observed and discussed – not just because it was a heated contestation, but also a very dirty one. Just like any other election, issues were spread to bolster one’s image and win over voters’ hearts.
The characteristics of the gubernatorial candidates, including their experience, the results of their work, their integrity and likability – be it physical, personal or otherwise – were endlessly compared and contested.
Long-standing issues, including ethnicity and religion, sprang up as a major part of these issues. This is understandable and will occur in other places across Indonesia. What was interesting in Jakarta was the emergence of the “religious defamation” momentum by one of the candidates. The issue was used as a major political discourse for more or less four months and involved people at the grass roots, including children, nationwide.
When such momentum is generated and used through civilian institutional instruments – including places of worship, offices and schools – we have a huge problem.
As that occurred in the Jakarta election, people’s emotions nationwide and especially in Jakarta were muddied, like coffee that is continuously stirred. After everyone had enjoyed the result, the coffee dregs had settled at the bottom of the cup. This part is often neglected and will be disposed. As long as these dregs are just coffee dregs, that’s not a problem. If these dregs are the bitterness and hatred among groups and the rejection of the concept of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia (NKRI), then we all need to be highly vigilant.
Exploitation of the panic button
In countries with bloody histories of civilian conflict – including South Africa, Rwanda, Cambodia and Timor Leste – the countries’ statesmen realize that the post-conflict period poses latent dangers if not managed well.
Such smoldering fires can trigger similar or even worse events in the future. In the study of mass psychology, this issue is known as the intergenerational transmission of trauma. When the roots of conflict are not dealt with in development and political communication, when the people that were engaged in conflicts do not understand the conflicts’ causes and are not given the opportunity to show mercy to the perpetrators, hatred, fear and stereotypes about the enemy flourish in the collective memory.
Whether deliberately or not, this collective memory will be transferred to one’s children and grandchildren in various ways. Without knowledge of history, these children and grandchildren will be shackled by the traumatic experiences of the preceding generations and, once triggered, will easily blow up. This will get worse if many children are turned into future ideological combatants without any respect for the NKRI and the constitution. When the moment comes, these children will be prepped and sent to the front lines.
In Jakarta and other places across Indonesia, the keywords that can trigger traumatic experiences in times of conflict sourced in political ideologies, such as communism or certain ethnicities and religions are not constructively discoursed to obtain soothing and trauma-healing enlightenment but are instead exploited in irresponsible ways.
Cognitive-emotional buttons that result in fear, panic, hatred, suspicion and a desire to destroy the parties seen as objects of the buttons are used as a strategy to win over people’s hearts. The buttons are pushed not only by politicians, but also by religious leaders and even the intellectuals who teach college students and children and are seen as role models.
Not too late
When we hear on campuses and on the streets how children are equating certain figures competing in gubernatorial elections with animals (dogs and pigs), we all know that we have a lot of homework to do. Those who won the democratic competition are (said to be) celebrating, while the people are suffering.
Their minds are torn apart and their heart are hurt. For many people, the Indonesia they aspired to is now nothing but a daydream. Raising awareness of the fact that, in such political contestations, people will always be used as instruments of power and greed, is not an easy thing to do. The veil on the true intents in political struggles is rarely lifted.
Changing wrong perceptions among individuals, groups and communities and mainstreaming respect and appreciation for the values of diversity is not easy.
It will be even harder when the mechanisms of learning from community and religious leaders and the learning process at schools is affected by irresponsible exploitation. Do the parties involved in the contestation and their respective consultants have solutions for this? This is highly doubtful, as their finish line is the statistics of the election result.
Formal and informal approaches
We have formal instruments to resolve issues of hatred, defamation and discourse based on issues of ethnicity, religion, race and intergroup relations (SARA). There is no need to mention them one by one. The amended 1945 Constitution clearly lists all of them. This is why the issue is not one of legal, formal substance but more about the culture of law. The Jakarta election is an example of a lawful country that does not implement the law.
Tolerance for legal violations is huge and is sometimes even seen as heroic. If we can correct ourselves in this regard and truly uphold the law, we will reap the results.
Informally, the segment of the population that is still “sane” in safeguarding the nation and the state should be brave in coming to the forefront and taking roles as individuals and institutions. Do not always be the silent majority. Do not be afraid to talk about issues of the panic button openly, constructively, critically and in accommodation of differences. In order to get this big ship of Indonesia back on course, we need all hands on deck.
IRWANTO
Director of Masters of Science Program and Doctorate Program of the Faculty of Psychology, Atma Jaya Catholic University Jakarta; Co-director of Center of Child Protection Studies, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, University of Indonesia
