Politics and Violence

KOMPAS/RONY ARIYANTO NUGROHO

A water cannon vehicle is used on May 5, 2013 during a riot control simulation of the Pakuan Law and Order Officer Pre-operation at Gasibu Square in Bandung, West Java. A joint exercise involving personnel from the National Police, Indonesian Military (TNI) and Hansip civilian security units followed the simulation, which was performed in preparation for the Bandung mayoral election on June 23, 2013.

With the 2018 Asian Games now over, and as we enter the “difficult” stage of politics, we need to focus on minimizing the type of politics that highlights in a negative manner differences in perspectives and interests.

The “politics of violence” is an ideology or mindset; the way of thinking of a regime and people in a political activity. In the era of reform, the politics of violence leftover from the New Order Era has been rejected by the nation.

What we actually reject are the acts of violence committed by groups that act in the name of "the regime" to obtain, support and maintain their power. That is the politics of violence that we had corrected 20 years ago.

Roots of the “politics of violence”

Both the politics of violence, which originates from an ideology that was created with the aim to create community obedience, and the political violence that comes from differences in attitude, in essence, are the same. It makes no difference – they are equally violent and against the principles of democracy.

Loyalty, obedience and political expression in democracy cannot really be overshadowed by threats, let alone violence. In the past, between the New Order era and the political era of the Old Order, we were divided by practical political interests, which were mixed with the politics of violence and/or political violence.

The reproduction of violence in any form will damage the elements of our democracy. Without freedom, democracy will turn into tyranny. Therefore, past acts of violence against activists and intellectuals who were critical and voiced freedom of speech should not occur again in the present.

Why should it be stopped? Because violence, which is deep-rooted in our political structure, does not only tarnish the achievements of our democracy. More than that, the destructive power takes a long time to forget, let alone fix. Have we not learned from the dark history of this nation that was dissolved in political violence in 1965, in 1997 with the kudatuli event and in 1998 with the May riots?

The impact of these events are still felt today. It seems that the unity and integrity of this nation has not yet recovered in a way that allows for growth and mutual respect in diversity.

Therefore, this nation needs to realize that violence, as an inherent perspective and a result of internal and external cultures, traditions and impulses that influence the perpetrators, will repeatedly rear its head. This is our common problem. It must be admitted that our political tradition is actually more "polite" and more receptive, and not with vis-a-vis traditions like in several countries such as India, Syria, Pakistan – countries with politics that are familiar with "violence – even gun violence”. There have been four general elections in the Reform Era and hundreds of regional elections that have run successfully without significant violence.

Studies conducted by Hartogs and Artzt (Grundy and Weinstein: 1974, 2-3) mention that there are three models of violence that frequently happen. First, there is a type of organized, deliberate violence. Second, there is spontaneous violence that is influenced by the exploitation of internal and external political situations. This violence is formed reactively. The reaction is a direct result of conditions of frustration. The third type is pathological violence, which is caused by physical and mental conditions.

The first type of violence tends to lead to political violence, where there are those who control or mobilize. This type of political violence can involve actors and various parties working to reach their end goals.

Political maturity

The three types of violence are ideally minimized in our electoral political practices. Our political choice to head toward democracy should be used as a catalyst in understanding political dynamics.

In that context, the essence of general elections cannot be interpreted as merely a way to achieve victory and power. General elections must be used to jointly educate about politics that is decorated with values that reflect the nation.

That is what is missing, because political commotion increasingly has the nuance of black and white, win or lose. Politics is a trick, with all its hustle and bustle that not only annoys, but hurts the conscience.

If we return to the framework of our Constitution, the amended 1945 Constitution, our electoral politics is shaped by the framework of a democratic system that guarantees that violence does not occur. Political differences are a given, but not necessary when differences are countered by means of mobilizing the masses, and ways of playing power. Democracy also requires political differences, because political contestation is basically a battle of differences.

We regret that, in the electoral politics ahead of the 2019 general election, there has been no movement to fight for ideas and thoughts. In fact, the general election is not merely a process – what is far more substantial is how both parties offer ideas for building this nation moving forward. The atmosphere of the "war of ideas" and the narrative of the two camps seems to have disappeared, rendering the Jokowi-Prabowo rematch empty in terms of ideas.

Electoral democracy should be full of argumentative debates that act as a differentiator to an anarchistic system. Such electoral democracy also requires political maturity from the two camps, especially from the incumbent.

Attitude of the presidential, vice presidential candidates

Politics that involving threatening one another will give birth to fragile democratic stability. Therefore, with every election event, the General Election Commission should foster a peaceful election. Issues regarding the candidates, both from the Jokowi and Prabowo camps, are crucial, and will determine whether the embryo of "violent politics" will continue and grow or be transformed into a rich debate of political ideas that have meaning.

At the very least, the two camps must be introspective and restrained. Because a political movement will follow the Hagobian instinct, where every crowd will have the potential to cause chaos and political commotion. The politics of retaliation will be a kind of cycle.

To avoid this, in addition to the attitudes and positions of the two candidates, which can bridge the differences between the two camps, the role and function of the state becomes more important. In order to prevent persecution and violence from occurring, the state instruments that are authorized – in this case, the police and the State Intelligence Agency (BIN) – should act independently and in a neutral way. In principle, the state must "protect" groups that are persecuted to create political peace.

Moch Nurhasim, Researcher at the Political Research Center of the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI)