Fundamental Causes of National Unity Crisis

Understanding the problem is the first step to overcoming it. Bertrand Russell.

A slightly modification of an article appeared in the Jakarta Post Nov, 1999 .

Today we are living in a rapidly changing world. Revolution is not only taking place in the business world through the creation of computers and their apparatus, but also occurring in every aspect of our lives. In the early of 90s, no one was able to foresee the end of New Order regime and the independence of East Timor. Everything changes so swiftly and unpredictably that often catches us unprepared to anticipate its consequences.

The diverse and rather haphazard reactions to democracy and reformation indicate our unreadiness in anticipating the consequences of reformation we are actively promoting. We have been preoccupied by our efforts to manage crisis in Molucca and Aceh until we are shaken by other similar events in Poso and Irian Jaya.

Widely regarded that the current unity crisis is driven by the heterogeneity of our ethnic, religion and race. This is supported by John Galtung in his book True World: A Transnational Perspective (1980). Galtung, a preeminent humanist, identifies three main causes of secessionist movements. Firstly, a relation of dominance, establishing dominator and dominated. Secondly, a high correlation between the dominator-dominated dimension and geographical location. Thirdly, a high correlation between the dominator-dominated dimension and ethnical or religious factor.

Galtung’s thesis applies to the recent movement in the Balkans where the dominated Kosovar and Bosnian ethnic people fought for their independence. The vacuum of absolute domination by a certain ethnic or religion in our country, however, compels us to seek more reasonable factors.

One of the fundamental causes is the unequal relationship between central and regional governments developing during New Order era. During the era, regional governments were basically treated like subordinates, not partners by central government in managing regional development. Central planners in Jakarta designed and implemented the blueprints of development, setting aside local and regional governments as secondary actors and in some cases just spectators.

Often, their inadequate understanding of local conditions resulted in controversial policies like the operation of Inti Rayon pulp factory in Porsea, North Sumatra. Local people rejected the operation of the factory but central government stubbornly ignored them until finally it was shut down when Jakarta was no longer able to control the situation.

To make matters worse, regional leaders that were generally appointed by Jakarta, also lacked understanding of local issues. In addition, their main priority was to serve central officials who were frequently treated like a king. My experience when a minister visited my hometown some years ago supports this assertion. The local government was very busy decorating the city and even sending students on vacation just to greet the minister.

Another major cause is a fundamental misconception that occurred in our economic development strategy. The central planners were too smart to ignore the reality that strong regional economies are the key to successful national development, not the other way around. Not only did it create serious regional disparities but also caused some regions far left behind compared to the nation as a whole.

According to data released by the Central Bureau of Statistics in 1998, the average per capita income of 19 provinces was 1,48 million rupiah, much lower compared to the national per capita income of 2,17 million rupiah. Per capita income in Jakarta was ten-fold that of Eastern Southeast Nusa and nine-fold that of Southeast Sulawesi.

During period of 1967-98, total approved domestic investment in five provinces was 12 trillion rupiah, much less compared to that of West Java that received 195 trillion rupiah. Foreign investment approvals in eight provinces were only $2,6 billion while, at the same period, West Java secured $64 billion.

Regional indicators of human basic needs such as access to health services, better education, clean water and sanitation are even more dismal. In eight provinces, ratio of student to teacher at elementary level was still much higher compared to the national average of 23 students per teacher. Population per public health center in eight provinces was 360, too high compared to the national average of 274.

Around 34 percent of households in 17 provinces do not have access to sanitation, while the national average is 24 percent. On average, 30 percent of households in 12 provinces do not have access to clean water, too high compared to the national average of 12 percent.

The disparities are further aggravated by capital drainage from local economies. Regional investment projects, mostly owned by foreign and central investors from rich provinces such as Jakarta and West Java, not only failed to boost the income of local people, but also pushed the capital outflows from peripheries to central. As a result, capital outflows from local economies are much greater than the capital inflows. In addition, central or foreign companies acquire most projects, leaving local companies with the marginal ones.

Unity based on mutually beneficial and equal cooperation between regional and center governments is more stable than superficial unity imposed by force. Consequently, there is no other alternative except to decentralize our economic and political policies, and to change the nature of relationship between central and regional governments from subordinate to partnership. This can be achieved without transforming the nation from unity into federation.

The great philosopher Bertrand Russell once remarked, “understanding the problem is the first step to overcoming it.” Without understanding the fundamental causes of the present crisis, it is impossible to formulate and implement an accurate policy aiming to keep our nation together as one.