Living Together
Sunny Tanuwidjaja

---

As a nation we have been living together for more than five decades. In this five decades Indonesian history is filled with conflicts among different groups separated by region, ethnicity, ideological orientation, and social class. From regional rebellions, the killing of the PKI, the oppression on political oppositions, the discrimination on minorities, to the continuing ethnic and religious tensions show how conflicts are pervasive in Indonesian history. On the one hand, this is understandable because Indonesia is a young and diverse nation. Indonesians are still learning to live together peacefully. It is not easy. On the other hand, this conflict filled history leads to the question: can Indonesians coexist peacefully?

Christ teaches us to love one another. Looking at the then and now Indonesia, it seems our society is far from that teaching. Christ demands from us not only to be able to live and coexist peacefully, but he demands that we love each other when we live and coexist together. Not only that Indonesian history is filled with conflict, but also when there is no conflict, traces of Christ’s teaching are not easy to find. It seems that many Indonesians live together without any sense of togetherness as Indonesians. Togetherness can be observed when there is harmony across class, groups, and geographical boundary, when an individual from any group is identified as part of a whole, when the identity of the whole is stronger and more popular that the identity of some. The presence of togetherness in a society is expressed by concern for public interest and for others. The sense of togetherness that exists in Indonesia is more localized within a region, ethnicity, and class. They live side by side; sometimes across or next to each other; but often live in tension, and in suspicion towards each other.

Putnam in his study of the American society shows how the Americans are losing their sense of community with the declining membership of communal association and the level of participation in communal projects. He also identifies two types of social capital: bonding and bridging social capital. The first type refers to social capitals which promote unity within certain groups, while the second type refers to social capitals which promote unity across groups. The case of Indonesia is similar to the American case, but the difference is that Indonesia is not losing their sense of togetherness to individualism; instead Indonesians are losing it because increasing fragmentation across groups. In the words of Putnam, Indonesia can be considered a society where the bonding social capital is high and the bridging social capital is low.

There are two possible reasons why people can coexist together peacefully. First, they coexist because they do not have any other choice. In some cases people are forced to, either by certain rules or by higher (stronger) authority. In other cases, people coexist because they need each other, for example due to business interests. The second possible reason why people can coexist peacefully is because they believe in similar fundamental values and they have common goals to pursue. In the former case, individuals can live together but there will be no sense of togetherness and they coexist peacefully because they are afraid or because they have to, while only in the latter case individuals can live together with a sense of togetherness.

Several examples show how there is low level of togetherness in Indonesia. If one is driving through the big streets in Jakarta and just look around, he or she can easily find how so few have concern for others and for the public interest. Cars (the drivers of course) try to cut others lane, horn is heard everywhere, bus drivers stop wherever they want to get as many passengers as possible, motorcycles drive through pedestrians’ lanes, even the policemen who suppose to be the guardian of public interests often are just trying to find drivers who made mistake so that they can ask for money. The thugs who control the area use the children, disables, and elderly to get money by forcing them to beg the cars that stop. The Polisi Pamong Praja, in the name of cleanliness and tidiness, are cleaning up the street by destroying small traders’ kiosks. When the traffic lights are not working, no policemen can be found and no drivers can even take the initiative to allow others to pass. If he does, his car will never move an inch because other cars will not reciprocate his action. The list of problems on the street that show how people do not care about others can go on and on and on. In Indonesia, the concern for others and the many is not accepted as a virtue, but often it is considered a foolishness, particularly in big cities. The question in everyone’s mind is: why should I be concerned for others when no one is, and what is in it for me? Why should I be concerned with the public interest, when others ignore it for their own sake?

Another example is the race related riot in Makassar a few years ago. The riot, although later came under control, began when a psychologically disable Chinese man was accused of killing and raping the daughter of a Muslim leader. Mob then began attacking shops and houses owned by the Chinese. The locals were angry because the Chinese community cannot control the behavior of their people. One of the high level bureaucrats in Makassar said that he called the Chinese leaders and told them that if they cannot control their people, there is nothing he could do to stop the escalation of the riot. Whether this riot was staged or not is not the point. Instead it is interesting how the race card can be played so easily in Indonesia. The disable individual was seen as a Chinese, and his behavior is the responsibility of the Chinese community. The questions are: why is this person is seen as a Chinese not an Indonesia, why his act is the responsibility of the Chinese community and not the whole Makassar city, and why it is the Chinese community responsibility to keep an eye on him and not the government? This case shows how ethnic fragmentation is prevalent in some places in Indonesia. This case shows how group identity is often times stronger that the Indonesian identity.

Another case is the shooting of several villagers by several marine officers due to land disputes in Pasuruan. This shooting leaves several dead and wounded. The background and more elaborate story of this case is not the main point however. What is relevant to this article is a small part of this story which provides a glimpse of the logic in Indonesian society. A meeting between the villagers, several high ranking marine officers, and local political leaders were set one morning to clear tensions and pursue understanding and resolutions between the two conflicting groups, the villagers were ready on time. However, the high ranking military officers along with the local political leaders were late for about an hour. Only after the villagers protested strongly and threatened to resign from the meeting the elites were willing to come out. Their excuse: they are in a meeting and they have not yet finished. They acted like the villagers’ time is less valuable and it is okay for the villagers to wait for the elites who suppose to be serving the people. This case another case that shows that concern for others is a rare thing in Indonesia. Even the elites whose job is to serve others think that the value of the people they suppose to serve are less than themselves.

What then can we do as the Indonesian church? There are several possible responses that have been done by the church in responding to the current changes in Indonesia:

1. Some withdraw into safety, believing that they can be safe within their own community;
2. Some adapt, trying to believe that everything is fine, they will not be affected by the changes in Indonesia, and try to move with the flow
3. Some look for protection from the majority, political parties, elites
4. Some choose frontal confrontation, and some even choose to create a separate nation
5. Some choose to get involve and be the agent of change. Indonesia this individuals believe is also theirs. Thus, they need to be involved in changing Indonesia.

The three responses are forms denial that the changes can affect the church. By finding refuge in internal community, in the majority, or by adapting, some hope that they can avoid the reality. The fourth response is surely an option but leads to further confrontation. All of these four responses either lead to further conflict and tension or lead to coexistence without a real sense of togetherness. All four intensify division instead of harmony. These four responses are based on a stronger identification as minority and not as Indonesian. The last response is unique. One of the leaders in the Chinese community, a Christian, and an activist argues that Indonesia is like a house. When it was built, all participated, and thus all who participated are the owner of this nation. This way of thinking is based on a clear sense of identity as Indonesian. He does not feel as a second class minority, instead he fells he has ownership of this nation. His sense of identity as Indonesia is the strongest. This type of response probably in the short run leads to tension, but in the long run this can lead to further unity and stronger sense of togetherness. This is the response that we as a church must take because the church is called to be agent of change by Christ and this is the only response that gives Indonesia a best chance to create a society where people can live together with a strong sense of togetherness.

Sunny Tanuwidjaja is currently pursuing Ph.D. in Political Science at Northern Illinois University

Back to top